International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology ENGINEERING (IJCET), ISSN 0976INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER 6367(Print), ISSN 0976

6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May June (2013), IAEME & TECHNOLOGY (IJCET) ISSN 0976 6367(Print) ISSN 0976 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May-June (2013), pp. 531-538 IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijcet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2013): 6.1302 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJCET
IAEME

TESTING AND TEST CASE GENERATION BY USING FUZZY LOGIC AND N.L.P TECHNIQUES
V.Sujatha1, K.Sriraman2,K. Ganapathi Babu3, B.V.R.R.Nagrajuna4 Asst.Prof, Department of CSE, Vignan's LARA Institute Of Technology & Science, Vadlamudi Guntur Dist., A.P., India. 2 Assoc.Prof, Department of CSE, Vignan's LARA Institute Of Technology & Science, Vadlamudi Guntur Dist., A.P., India. 3 Pursuing M.Tech in CSE at Vignan's LARA Institute Of Technology & Science, Vadlamudi Guntur Dist., A.P., India. 4 Pursuing M.Tech in CSE at Vignan's LARA Institute Of Technology & Science, Vadlamudi Guntur Dist., A.P., India.
1

ABSTRACT Software engineering is the process in developing a software .this gives a challenging task for developers. Developers follow software development life cycle models for getting better results. In this, Testing phase plays a vital role in the entire software development life cycle. Testing is nothing but reducing bugs and developing software with quality. This paper deals with a new approach of search based testing and test case generation by implementing fuzzy logic with natural language processing. Index Terms: Test case generation, Fuzzy logic, Natural Language Processing. I INTRODUCTION Testing[12] is the process of searching the bugs and errors and correcting them and satisfying the user requirements in all aspects and after delivery of the product and the stake holder should not face any problem. Testing process examines the code in all environments for getting better results. Testing mainly focuses on usability, scalability, performance, compatibility and reliability. Testing compares the behavior of the product against all odds by principles and mechanism it recognizes the problems occurred. We have many testing techniques for search based testing[3] , test case generation [1],test suite generation[12] ,test case reduction[12] ,automatic fault finding[12] etc. In this paper we mainly concentrate on
531

International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 09766367(Print), ISSN 0976 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May June (2013), IAEME the search based testing [3] and automatic test case generation[1], automatic faults finding using fuzzy logic with natural language processing techniques by using this getting efficient results.

Fig1: overview of this testing technique II RELATED WORK Testing may be either dynamic testing[12] and static testing[12] .we have two software engineering testing techniques they are black box testing[12] and white box testing[12]. Black box testing is the functional and white box testing is the structural testing[12]. White box testing chooses inputs to exercise paths through the code and determine the appropriate outputs test paths within a unit. To know the paths between units during integration and between subsystems are by the systemlevel test only. White-box test design techniques includes Control flow testing[11], Data flow testing[12], Branch testing[11], Path testing[12], Statement coverage[11], Decision coverage where black box testing is a method of testing which examines the functionality of an application without peering into its internal structures or workings. Test cases[11] are builtaround specifications and requirements, that is what the application is supposed to do. Test cases are generally derived from external descriptions of the software, including specifications, requirements and design parameters. Although the tests are performed primarily functional [12]in nature, and also non-functional tests[11]. The test designer selects both valid and invalid inputs and determines the correct output without any knowledge of the test object's internal structure. III PROCESS OF TEST CASE GENERATION Gray-box[12] is the combination of white-box testing and black-box testing.. The aim of this testing is to search for the defects if any due to improper structure or improper usage of applications. Gray-box testing is also known as translucent testing[12]. Gray-box testing is based on requirement test case generation because it presets all the conditions before program is tested by using assertion method[11]. Requirement specification language is used to state the requirements which make easy to understand the requirements and verify its correctness too where input for requirement test case generation is the predicates and the verification discussed in requirement specification language.

532

International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 09766367(Print), ISSN 0976 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May June (2013), IAEME Gray-box testing techniques are: Matrix Testing[11]: states the status report of the project. Regression testing[12]: it implies rerunning of the test cases if new changes are made. Pattern Testing[11]: verify the good application for its design or architecture and patterns. Orthogonal array testing[12]: used as subset of all possible combination. Gray-box testing is suited for functional or business domain testing. Functional testing is done basically a test of user interactions with may be external systems. As gray-box testing[can efficiently suits for functional testing due to its characteristics; it also helps to confirm that software meets the requirements defined for the software[12] Test suite[11], less commonly known as a validation suite, is a collection of test suites that are intended to be used to test a software program to show that it has some specified set of behaviors. A test suite often contains detailed instructions or goals for each collection of test cases and information on the system configuration to be used during testing. The tester should be aware of what the software is supposed to do but is not aware of how it does it. For instance, when the tester is aware that a particular input returns a certain invariable output when the tester is not aware of how the software produces the output in the first place. Test automation[12] is the special technique used to control the execution of tests and the comparison of actual outcomes to predicted outcomes. Test automation can automate some repetitive, but necessary tasks in a formalized testing process already in place, or add additional testing that would be difficult to perform manually. There are two general approaches to test automation Code-driven testing.[11], Graphical user interface testing[12]. Code driven testing that allow the execution of unit tests to determine whether various sections of the code are acting as expected under various circumstances. Graphical user interface testing helps users to interactively record user actions and replay them back any number of times, comparing actual results to those expected A framework[12] is an integrated system that sets the rules of automation of a specific product. This system integrates the function libraries, test data sources, object details and various reusable modules. This components acts as small building blocks which need to be assembled to represent a business process. The framework provides the basis of test automation and simplifies the automation effort. Various techniques implemented in testing are as follows, Exploratory testing[11] is an approach to software testingthat is concisely described as simultaneous learning, test design and test execution is "a style of software testing that emphasizes the personal freedom and responsibility of the individual tester to continually optimize the quality of his/her work by treating test-related learning, test design, test execution, and test result interpretation as mutually supportive activities that run in parallel throughout the project." While the software is being tested, the tester learns things that together with experience and creativity generates new good tests to run. Exploratory testing is often thought of as a black box testing technique. Instead, those who have studied it consider it a test approach that can be applied to any test technique, at any stage in the development process. The key is not the test technique nor the item being tested or reviewed; the key is the cognitive engagement of the tester, and the tester's responsibility for managing his or her time. Functional testing[11] refers to activities that verify a specific action or function of the code. These are usually found in the code requirements documentation, although some
533

International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 09766367(Print), ISSN 0976 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May June (2013), IAEME development methodologies work from use cases or user stories. Functional testtend to answer the question of "can the user do this" or "does this particular feature work." Non-functional testing[11] refers to aspects of the software that may not be related to a specific function or user action, such as scalability or other performance behavior under certain constraints, or security. Testing[12] will determine the flake point, the point at which extremes of scalability or performance leads to unstable execution. Nonfunctionalrequirements tend to be those that reflect the quality of the product, particularly in the context of the suitability perspective of its users. In this paper we mainly concentrate on the search based testing and automatic test case generation, automatic faults finding using fuzzy logic with natural language processing techniques by using this getting efficient results. IV STUDY METHODOLOGY Fuzzy logic [6] is the form of many valued logic it deals with reasoning that is approximate. Compared to traditional binary sets. Fuzzy logic variables may have a truth values that ranges in degree between 0 and 1. Fuzzy logic extends concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. Furthermore, when linguistic variables [6] are used, these degrees may be managed by specific functions can be known as the fuzzy functions [20]. Testing plays a vital role in the software development life cycle. Fuzzytesting or fuzzing [20] is a software testing technique, often automated or semiautomated, that involves providing invalid, unexpected, or random data to the inputs of a computer program. The program is then monitored for exceptions such as crashes, or failing built-in code assertions [12] or for finding potential memory leaks [12]. Fuzzing is commonly used to test for security problems in software or computer systems [12]. Fuzzy testing or fuzzing is one form of black box testing that focuses on the robustness of the software, and the history of fuzzing is relatively short in comparison to other software testing techniques. There are two forms of fuzzing. Program, mutation based and generation based, which can be employed as white, grey or black-box testing... Mutation based fuzzers mutate [23] existing data samples to create test data while generation based fuzzers [20] define new test data based on models of the input. File formats and network protocols [12] are the most common targets of testing, but any type of program input can be fuzzed. Interesting inputs include environment variables keyboard and mouse events, and sequences of API calls [12]. Even items not normally considered "input" can be fuzzed, such as the contents of data bases, shared memory [12], or the precise interleaving of threads [12]. The simplest form of fuzzing technique is sending a stream of random bits to software, either as command line options, randomly mutated protocol packets, or as events. This technique of random inputs still continues to be a powerful tool to find bugs in command-line applications, network protocols, and GUI-based applications [12] and services [12]. Another common technique that is easy to implement is mutating existing input a test suite by flipping bits at random or moving blocks of the file around. However, the most successful fuzzers have detailed understanding of the format or protocol being tested. The better specification-based fuzzer involves writing the entire array of specifications into the tool, and then using model-based test generation techniques in walking through the specifications and adding anomalies in the data contents, structures, messages, and sequences. This "smart fuzzing"[12] technique is also known as robustness testing [11], syntax testing, [12] grammar testing [6], and (input) fault injection [23]. The protocol awareness can also be created heuristically from examples using a tool such as Sequitur [12]
534

International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 09766367(Print), ISSN 0976 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May June (2013), IAEME these fuzzers can generate test cases from scratch, or they can mutate examples from test suites or real life. They can concentrate on valid or invalid input, with mostly-valid input tending to trigger the "deepest" error cases [12]. There are two limitations of protocol-based fuzzing based on protocol implementations of published specifications: 1) Testing[11] cannot proceed until the specification is relatively mature, since a specification is a prerequisite for writing such a fuzzer; and 2) Many useful protocols are proprietary, or involve proprietary extensions to published protocols. If fuzzing [19] is based only on published specifications, test coverage [11] for new or proprietary protocols will be limited or nonexistent. Fuzz testing can be combined with other testing techniques. [12] White-box fuzzing uses symbolic execution [7] and constraint solving. Evolutionary [12] fuzzing leverages feedback from a heuristic [11] (E.g., code coverage in grey-box harnessing, or a modeled attacker behavior in black-box harnessing) effectively automating the approach of exploratory testing. Fuzzing is a negative black box testing technique which aims to find security flaws [12] and robustness defects in the SUT [11]. The fuzz testing process starts with feeding unexpected and malformed inputs to the SUT through external interfaces in a repeated manner. Response messages sent by the SUT can be logged and analysed. The SUT is also monitored for any faulty behaviour throughout the testing process. To ease the analysis of any found defects, failure monitoring should include a recording of the events leading to the failure and the failure itself. Ideally, this process is highly automated, with the aim being to perform as much testing as possible in a short time span without producing a large amount of redundant testing data Fuzzer Categorization [19]. V. LANGUAGE MODEL IN TO SEARCH BASED INPUT GENERATION WITH FUZZY TESTING A statistical language model [14] assigns a probability [12] score to a string that estimates the likelihood of that string occurring in the language it models. A good language model for English, for example, assigns higher probability scores to strings that resemble well-formed words, such as testing, and lower scores to strings that do not, e.g. Qu5$-ua. Language models are widely used in natural language and speech processing [6] for a wide range of tasks, including machine translation [12] and automatic speech recognition [8]. In this paper, a character-based language model [8] is used, where the language is represented as a sequence of characters. The same basic approach is used by both word and character based models. Not only character based but also we are using fuzzy testing in this language processing. A fuzzy testing tool is generally called a fuzzer. Taken et al. describe a four-way categorization of fuzzers which is founded on test case complexity. The following categorization is sorted from the least intelligent fuzzers to the most intelligent ones. The first category is static and random template fuzzers, which are typically used to test simple request/response protocols, or file formats. They generate arbitrary input data, and have very little or no structural or semantic knowledge at all about the protocol used by the SUT. The second category of fuzzers is block-based fuzzers, which contain an implementation of the basic structure of a request/response protocol. When a fuzzer possesses structural details of the protocol, it can focus on testing specific parts of the protocol messages at a time, while possibly retaining other parts of the message valid and intact. The third category is dynamic generation or evolution-based fuzzers, which are able to learn the protocol used by the SUT based on the interpretation of the messages received from the SUT or recorded from similar
535

International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 09766367(Print), ISSN 0976 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May June (2013), IAEME protocol exchanges between the SUT and other protocol implementations. Therefore, it is not a necessity for the fuzzer to have preliminary knowledge of the protocol under fuzz testing. The last category of fuzzers is model based or simulation-based fuzzers [19], which incorporate either an implementation of the protocol model used by the SUT, or a simulation of the interactions within the protocol. A fully model-based fuzzer is able to achieve full interoperability with the SUT, which means that the fuzzer exercises the input handling routines of the SUT thoroughly. The model-based approach also enables fuzzing the latter parts of a complex message sequence However, the number of possible strings means that many of these sequences will not be found, even in an extremely large corpus[12], making these probabilities impossible to estimate directly. A language with c possible characters has cn possible sequences of n characters. For example, if we assume that there are26 characters in English (i.e. ignoring case, punctuation and whitespace) the number of possible 5 character sequences is over 11 million. Let c1n be a sequence of n characters (c1, c2, c n) A language model aims to assign a value to the probability P (c1n). This can be decomposed using the chain rule of probability, allowing the probability of each character ci to be estimated based on the characters that preceded it in c1n P(c1n) = P(c1)P(c2/c1)P(c3/c21):::P(cn/c1n-1) = ni=1=1P(ci/c1 i-1) Where P (ci/c1i-1) is the probability of character ci following the sequence c1i-1. Consequently language models approximate the probability of strings by combining the probabilities of shorter sequences, for which more reliable probabilities can be inferred from the corpus. One approach is to estimate the probability of each character based only on the character that immediately precedes it: P(cn1) ~ ni=1P(ci/c i-1) This type of language model is known as a bigram model. However, even when using a bigram model some pairs of characters will not be seen in large corpora, and in these cases the probabilities are estimated by combining the probabilities of individual characters, i.e. P(ci), computed using smoothing and back-off techniques. In general longer strings are less likely to occur than shorter ones and language models assign them lower probabilities. To avoid bias in favour of shorter strings the probability generated by the language model is normalized by taking the geometric mean, i.e. the score assigned to a string, score(c1n), is computed as score(c1n) = P(c1n)1/n. We are introducing an advanced Search-based test input generation has been applied extensively to the generation of structural test data . Formulation of a fitness function is the main feature of a search-based approach. The fitness function underpins the test goal, rewarding inputs close to fulfilling the goal with good fitness values, while punishing inputs that are far away with weak fitness values. A metaheuristic search technique[5], such as an evolutionary or local search algorithm[13], is used to optimize the fitness function. The search favours exploration around input values with the best fitness values on the assumption that they lie in the vicinity of inputs with even better fitness with the aim of finding inputs that lead to the satisfaction of the current test goal of interest. The conventional fitness function for generating inputs to cover individual branches is concerned with the control structure of the program and the values of variables at decision points only. The fitness function is to be minimized, with a zero fitness value representing the global optimum. The approach level (AL) scores how far down the control dependency graph the input penetrated with respect to a target branch. Added to the approach level is the normalized
536

International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 09766367(Print), ISSN 0976 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May June (2013), IAEME branch distance (BD) metric, which scores how close the input was to taking the alternate desired branch. With this fitness function, the goal of the search is to cover a particular branch with any input that can be found. However, the inputs found tend to look random from a human perspective, and the information encoded in string inputs requires work to decipher due to arbitrary character sequences. VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK This paper has presented an approach to automatic string input generation and dealing with natural language processing and using an emerging technique Fuzzy logic to get efficient results. where the strings are not only optimized for test coverage but also according to a language model, in order to improve human readability. Since automated oracles are frequently unavailable in software engineering practice, this work therefore has an important bearing on lowering the costs of human involvement in the testing process as a manual oracle. Our technique improves readability of strings without weakening the test adequacy criterion. However, for non stringent criteria like branch coverage (as used our study), where several inputs may execute a branch, the use of less readable strings may be more effective at exposing corner cases and discovering flaws in an implementation. In this case, the use of a language model may represent a trade-off for a tester. The future working proposed to do for this paper is to maintain. REFERENCES
[1]. Tim Miller, Prioritisation of test suites containing precedence constraints. [2]. Dennis Bernard Jeffrey, Test Suite Reduction With Selective Redundancy. [3]. Andrearcuri, Automatic software generation and improvement Through Search Based Techniques. [4]. Phil Mcminn, Muzammil Shahbaz And Mark Stevenson Search-Based Test Input Generation For String Data Types using The Results Of Web Queries. [5]. PhilMcminn,Mark Harman, Kiran Lakhotia,,Youssef Hassoun Input Domain Reduction Through Irrelevant Variable Removal and Its Effect On Local, Global And Hybrid SearchBased Structural Test Data Generation. [6]. Sheeva Afshan, Phil Mcminn And Mark Stevenson Evolving Readable String Test Inputs Using A Natural Language Model To Reduce Human Oracle Cost. [7]. Guandong Xu1, Yanchun Zhang1, And Xiaofang Zhou2,A Web Recommendation Technique Based on Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis. [8]. In-Young Ko, Robert Neches, and Ke-Thia Yao,A Semantic Model and Composition Mechanism for Active Document Collection Templates in Web-based Information Management Systems. [9]. Steven P. Reiss, Semantics-Based Code Search. [10]. Claudia dAmato, Similarity-Based Learning Methods for The Semantic Web. [11]. Jovanovi, Irena,Software testing methods and techniques [12]. www.wikipedia.com [13]. P. Maragathavalli Search-Based Software Test Data Generation Using Evolutionary Computation. [14]. Anastasis A. Sofokleous, Andreas S. Andreou, Antonis Kourras Symbolic Execution For Dynamic, Evolutionary Test Data Generation.

537

International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 09766367(Print), ISSN 0976 6375(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May June (2013), IAEME
[15]. M.Papadakis1AndN. Malevris1, Improving Evolutionary Test Data Generation With The Aid Of Symbolic Execution. [16]. Ymateus Borges, Ymarcelo Damorim, Saswat Anand, Zdavid Bushnell, And Zcorina S. PAsAreanu, Symbolic Execution With Interval Solving And Meta-Heuristic Search. [17]. Tao Xie1 Nikolai Tillmann2 Jonathan De Halleux2 Wolfram Schulte2 Fitness-Guided Path Exploration In Dynamic Symbolic Execution. [18]. Tuomas Parttimaa,Test Suite Optimisation Based On Response status Codes And Measured Code Coverage. [19]. Craig Stuart Carlson,Fuzzy Logic Load forecasting With Genetic algorithm Parameter adjustment. [20]. Vikash Kumar1, D. Chakraborty1 ,Optimizing Fuzzy Multi-Objective Problems Using Fuzzy Genetic Algorithms ,Fz dt Test Functions. [21] Arthur Baars,Mark HarmanYoussef Hassoun Kiran Lakhotia Phil McMinn Paolo Tonella Tanja Vos K. Kollman, J. H. Miller, and S. E. Page, Adaptive parties in spatial elections, The American Political Science Review, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 929937, 1992,.Symbolic Search-Based Testing. [22]. Muzammil Shahbaz, Phil Mcminn, Mark Stevenson, Automated Discovery Of Valid Test Strings From The Web Using dynamic Regular Expressions Collation And Natural Language Processing. [23] Salem F. Adra And Phil Mcminn, Mutation Operators For Agent-Based Models. [24] Anand Handa, Ganesh Wayal Rkdfist and Rgpv Bhopal, Software Quality Enhancement using Fuzzy Logic with Object Oriented Metrics in Design, International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 169 179, ISSN Print: 0976 6367, ISSN Online: 0976 6375. [25] Mousmi Chaurasia and Dr. Sushil Kumar, Natural Language Processing Based Information Retrieval for the Purpose of Author Identification, International Journal of Information Technology and Management Information Systems (IJITMIS), Volume 1, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 45 - 54, ISSN Print: 0976 6405, ISSN Online: 0976 6413.

AUTHOR PROFILES

V.Sujatha, Asst.Prof, Department of CSE, Vignan's LARA Institute Of Technology &

Science, Vadlamudi Guntur Dist., A.P., India. She has done her B. Tech at JNTU Hyderabad in the year of 2003, her M.Tech at Nagarjuna University in the year of 2007. Her research interests are AI,NN, Software Engineering and Image Processing.

K.Sriraman, Assoc.Prof, Department of CSE, Vignan's LARA Institute Of Technology & Science, Vadlamudi Guntur Dist., A.P., India. His research interests are Soft Computing, AI, NN, FS,PR&Image Processing and Security. He is Life Member in ISTE. K. Ganapathi Babu, Pursuing M.Tech in Department of CSE at Vignan's LARA
Institute Of Technology & Science, Vadlamudi Guntur Dist., A.P., India. His research interest includes in Image Processing, Software Engineering and Data Mining. He is being a member of IACSIT, IAENG and IAEME journal and association.

B.V.R.R.Nagrajuna, Pursuing M.Tech in Department of CSE at Vignan's LARA Institute Of Technology & Science, Vadlamudi Guntur Dist., A.P., India. His research interest includes in Software Engineering, Data Mining and Image Processing.
538