1. Microsoft Research, Foundations of Software EngineeringW. Grieskamp et. al: Behavioral Compositions in Symbolic Domains Behavioral Composition in Symbolic Domains Wolfgang Grieskamp Nicolas Kicillof Colin Campbell Foundations of Software Engineering Microsoft Research, Redmond 10/2/2005 @ AOM 2005

2. Microsoft Research, Foundations of Software EngineeringW. Grieskamp et. al: Behavioral Compositions in Symbolic Domains Model-based testing at Microsoft Success story –approx. 1k users and growing Smart testers like modeling –Backdoor entry Models given as –Plain state machines –Model programs (abstract state machines)

3. Microsoft Research, Foundations of Software EngineeringW. Grieskamp et. al: Behavioral Compositions in Symbolic Domains Model-based testing with Spec Explorer Spec Explorer [ISSTA02, FATES03, QSIC03, ISSTA04, FATES05, FSE05,…] supports analysis and conformance testing of concurrent systems with model programs Model Program State Graph Test cases Pass/Fail Implementation Exploration & Scenario control Modeling (in Spec# or AsmL) Test Generation Test ExecutionCoding

4. Microsoft Research, Foundations of Software EngineeringW. Grieskamp et. al: Behavioral Compositions in Symbolic Domains Users want more! Notational diversity –Models in state-based and interaction-based paradigms –Models as diagrams and in textual notations Compositionality –Combining feature models –Merging aspect models (like test purpose) Analyzability –Property checking –Refinement checking –Doing this independently or in composition

5. Microsoft Research, Foundations of Software EngineeringW. Grieskamp et. al: Behavioral Compositions in Symbolic Domains Addressing the requirements: Action Machines Language-agnostic representation of behavior –Represent various modeling styles (state-based, scenario-based) as well as programs uniformly Allow for many composition types –Product, alternating simulation, substitution, etc. Incorporate symbolic state and computation –Allow for partial, aspect-oriented models –Allow to close environment symbolically (e.g. parameters to method calls)

6. Microsoft Research, Foundations of Software EngineeringW. Grieskamp et. al: Behavioral Compositions in Symbolic Domains Example of basic action machines: Abstract State Machines Methods describe state transitions (Spec Explorer methodology) State can be symbolic Parameters of method invocations can be symbolic S0 int count; [Action] bool Add(int x){ requires x >= 0; if (x < 10){ count += x; return true; } else return false; } S1S2 0 >= u & u < 10: Add(u)/true 0 >= u & !(u < 10): Add(u)/false count := v count:=v+ucount:=v

7. Microsoft Research, Foundations of Software EngineeringW. Grieskamp et. al: Behavioral Compositions in Symbolic Domains Example of basic action machines: Scenario machines Control-flow oriented description of behavior Invocations to designated actions “abstracted” Can use symbolic parameters, choices S0 [Action] Client.Enter(); [Action] Client.Send(object msg); [Action] Client.Recv(object msg); [Scenario] void S(){ Client c = Any ; c.Enter(); while (Any ) c.Send(Any ); while (Any ) Any.Recv(Any ); } S1 v.Enter() v.Send(_) S2 _.Recv(_)

8. Microsoft Research, Foundations of Software EngineeringW. Grieskamp et. al: Behavioral Compositions in Symbolic Domains Compound Action Machines: Product Contains steps both machines can do Unification of symbolic state part Can be used for –Scenario control (restrict behavior) –Property checking (one machine is the “anti-machine” and the product is empty if the property holds) A(v) B() v > 0 A(u) C() u <= 1 X = A(1) u = v v > 0 u <= 1

9. Microsoft Research, Foundations of Software EngineeringW. Grieskamp et. al: Behavioral Compositions in Symbolic Domains More composition operators Process algebra –Product, interleaving, renaming (translation) Temporal logics and regular expressions –Sequencing, repetition, joker, … Refinement –Alternating simulation (conformance notion of Spec Explorer) AOM –Substitution

10. Microsoft Research, Foundations of Software EngineeringW. Grieskamp et. al: Behavioral Compositions in Symbolic Domains Conclusion Notation independence achieved –We plan to combine action machines with VS DSL tools/software factories Model-checking and model-based testing possible –benefiting from strict semantics No difference between a “main” model and an “aspect” model –the later is just more partial Symbolic state exploration is key technology –helps us to naturally describe and analyze partial models and model compositions