Henk Doornbos & Rix Groenboom - Test Patterns: A New Concept For Testing

Test Patterns-- a new concept for testing --

Henk Doornbos

Rix Groenboom

Research sponsored by

Overview

• Testing challenge

• Current testing techniques

• New approaches

• Towards Test Patterns

• Conclusions

Testing is Difficult

• SOA in particular– Heterogeneous interfaces: Web, Gui, WS, JMS, JDBC– Many dependencies– Many re-configurations

• SOA – Mesh:

– Mash up:– Mess: Spaghetti oriented architecture

Testing is Difficult

• Architecture is heterogeneous

JUBES

ERSB2B

B2BG

B2BG

BPEL EBS

IPEX

ebXML / ebMS AQ AQ DB link GUI

TestTool

Advanced Queues

CJIB

VIP

JDS

HTTP / SOAP

Testing is Difficult

• Many different interfaces:

JUBES

ERSB2B

B2BG

B2BG

BPEL EBS

IPEX

ebXML / ebMS AQ AQ DB link GUI

TestTool

Advanced Queues

CJIB

VIP

JDS

HTTP / SOAP

Testing is Difficult

• Tester performs manual steps, eg:– Enter user-data via website (with IE)– Check database status (with TOAD)– Submit XML message (with SOAPui)

– Check database status (with TOAD)

• Therefore, current process is tedious:– hence error propone– Not repeatable

Current testing tools

• Currently, there is a portfolio of testing tools with a focus on automation:– Test management tools– Individual tools for testing (GUI, Web, Load, DB)

• Main problem:– Semantic gap, the tester is the “glue” between the

different tools

Current testing tools

• Example: TestFrame– Excel based technology– Separation between logical and physical test cases– Ad-hoc engine implementation for test automation

– No clear semantics

Current testing tools

Current testing tools

• Example: SOAtest– Platform for testing SOA implementations– Supports of multiple protocols (HTTP / JDBC etc)– Test flow over multiple interfaces is possible

– Example CRUD operations:• Search service call• Retrieve service call• Update service call

• Validate Database

Current testing tools

Towards solution

• More powerful tools allow automation of testing often for single interfaces– Solves the technical interaction and provides repeatability

• We still need an integrated framework to drive the testing and to process the results (orchestration)– Provides the flexibility to handle overall architecture

Towards solution

• IDEA 1: Use structure of architecture for testing– Architecture is most stable part of applications– Clearly defined interfaces

DatabaseServer

Application Server

Legacy

Presentation Layer

Web Services

Application Logic Thin

ClientWeb Site

Towards solution

• IDEA 2: Regard testing as a business process– Make basic steps executable: call the relevant testing

tools using a web-service interface– BPEL for Test Orchestration

BPEL: Advantages

• BPEL:– Web standard– Direct execution of webservices– Programming language, so you can define patterns

(recurring structures)

– There are semantics so you can reason about processes

• BPEL for testing:– Provide test-tool with web-service interface, so we can

communicate with them directly from BPEL

BPEL: Example

• Drive SOAtest from BPEL

BPEL: Example

• Example integration: SOAtest & WebKing

BPEL: Provides also semantics

• Requires mathematical solution :– Parallelism, non deterministic, asynchronous

• Testing will have mathematic laws:– T1 + T2 = T2 + T1– T1 || T2 = T2 || T1– T1 + ( T2 || T3 ) = (T1 || T2) + (T1 || T3)

• Use process algebra like CSP:– Provides a framework to compose operations

Example pattern (0)

• CRUD operations– CREATE– READ– UPDATE

– DELETE

Example pattern (1)

• Standard ESB structure:– Basic services– Integrated services– Business services

– User layer: GUI

• Which test pattern ?

Example pattern (2)

• Diagram:

Example pattern (1)

• Proposed test pattern:– Unit testing of basic services– Integration test: no new logic, therefore nothing to test– Business process testing: Web submission

Example pattern (2)

• Diagram:

Example pattern (2)

• Database application with WS front-end– B2B communication– Legacy backend communication (mailboxes)

Example pattern (2)

• Diagram:

Example pattern (2)

• Special Web-services implementation for encapsulation of legacy protocol

Conclusions

• Testing of SOA is becoming increasingly complex– Requires more mathematical approach

• BPEL can be used to model the test process– Higher level of abstraction– Better defined semantics

• Will lead to a library of test-patterns:– Using proper automation, this gives reuse of test effort

About us

• Windesheim: – University of Applied Sciences – www.windesheim.nl

• Parasoft:– Provider of software test solutions for SOA and BPEL– www.parasoft.com

• SIOG:– St. ICT Onderzoek & Ontwikkeling Groningen– Knowledge valorization– Joint projects Groningen, Oldenburg, Bremen