skip to main content
research-article

Testing Preorders for dMTS: Deadlock- and the New Deadlock-/DivergenceTesting

Authors Info & Claims
Published:19 December 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Testing preorders on component specifications ensure that replacing a specification by a refined one does not introduce unwanted behavior in an overall system. Considering deadlocks as unwanted, the preorder can be characterized by a failure semantics on Labeled Transition Systems (LTSs). In previous work, we have generalized this to Modal Transition Systems (MTSs) with a new, MTS-specific testing idea. In the present article, we generalize this idea further to DMTS, a subclass of disjunctive MTSs. On the one hand, the testing preorder can be characterized by the same failure semantics, and dMTS have no additional expressivity in our setting. On the other hand, the technical treatment is significantly harder and, surprisingly, the preorder is not compositional.

Furthermore, we regard deadlocks and divergence (infinite unobservable runs) as unwanted and characterize the testing preorder with an unusual failure-divergence semantics. This preorder is already on LTSs strictly coarser—and hence arguably better—than the traditional failure-divergence preorder. It is a precongruence on dMTS, also for hiding, and much easier to handle than the deadlock-based preorder. It arises as well from a new variant of De Nicola’s and Hennessy’s must-testing.

References

  1. Bernd Baumgarten. 1987. On internal and external characterizations of PT-net building block behaviors. In Advances in Petri Nets 1988, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 340. Springer, 44--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Shoham Ben-David, Marsha Chechik, and Sebastián Uchitel. 2013. Merging partial behaviour models with different vocabularies. In CONCUR 2013, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8052. Springer, 91--105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Nikola Beneš, Ivana Černá, and Jan Křetínský. 2011. Modal transition systems: Composition and LTL model checking. In ATVA 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6996. Springer, 228--242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Nikola Benes, Benoît Delahaye, Uli Fahrenberg, Jan Kretínský, and Axel Legay. 2013. Hennessy-Milner logic with greatest fixed points as a complete behavioural specification theory. In CONCUR 2013, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8052. Springer, 76--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Jan A. Bergstra, Jan W. Klop, and Ernst-Rüdiger Olderog. 1987. Failures without chaos: A new process semantics for fair abstraction. In Formal Description of Programming Concepts III. North-Holland, 77--103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Stephen D. Brookes, C. A. R. Hoare, and Andrew W. Roscoe. 1984. A theory of communicating sequential processes. J. ACM 31, 3 (1984), 560--599. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ferenc Bujtor and Walter Vogler. 2015a. Error-pruning in interface automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 597 (2015), 18--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ferenc Bujtor and Walter Vogler. 2015b. Failure semantics for modal transition systems. ACM Trans. Embedded Comput. Syst. 14, 4, Article 67 (2015), 30 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Rocco De Nicola. 1987. Extensional equivalences for transition systems. Acta Inf. 24, 2 (1987), 211--237. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Rocco De Nicola and Matthew Hennessy. 1984. Testing equivalences for processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 34 (1984), 83--133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Harald Fecher and Heiko Schmidt. 2008. Comparing disjunctive modal transition systems with an one-selecting variant. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 77, 1--2 (2008), 20--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Matthew Hennessy. 1988. Algebraic Theory of Processes. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hans Hüttel and Kim Guldstrand Larsen. 1989. The use of static constructs in a modal process logic. In Logic at Botik, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 363. Springer, 163--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kim G. Larsen, Ulrik Nyman, and Andrzej Wa̧sowski. 2007. On modal refinement and consistency. In CONCUR 2007, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4703. Springer, 105--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Kim G. Larsen and Liu Xinxin. 1990. Equation solving using modal transition systems. In LICS 1990. IEEE Computer Society, 108--117. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Gerald Lüttgen and Walter Vogler. 2013a. Modal interface automata. Logical Meth. Comput. Sci. 9, 3 (2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Gerald Lüttgen and Walter Vogler. 2013b. Richer interface automata with optimistic and pessimistic compatibility. Electron, Comput. EASST 66 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Robin Milner. 1989. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall. I--XI, 1--260 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Lev Sorokin. 2014. F-Semantik für Disjunktive Modale Transitionssysteme. B.Sc. thesis. Universität Augsburg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Antti Valmari. 1995a. Failure-based equivalences are faster than many believe. In Structures in Concurrency Theory (Workshops in Computing). Springer, 326--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Antti Valmari. 1995b. The weakest deadlock-preserving congruence. Inf. Process. Lett. 53, 6 (1995), 341--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Walter Vogler. 1989. Failures semantics and deadlocking of modular petri nets. Acta Inf. 26, 4 (1989), 333--348. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Walter Vogler. 1992. Modular Construction and Partial Order Semantics of Petri Nets, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 625. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Testing Preorders for dMTS: Deadlock- and the New Deadlock-/DivergenceTesting

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!