UCS1010 SOFTWARE TESTING

UNIT 2 TEST CASE DESIGN

BOUNDARY VALUE ANALYSIS TEST CASE DESIGN
Boundary Value Analysis (BVA) is a software testing technique used to identify errors at the
boundaries rather than within the range of values. It focuses on testing values at the boundary
edges rather than just the middle of the input domain, because errors are more likely to occur
at boundary values.
Steps for Boundary Value Analysis (BVA):
1. Identify the input variables.
2. Determine the boundaries for each input.
3. Create test cases for values just below, at, and just above each boundary.
Example Test Case using BVA:
Let’s consider an example of an online form that accepts the age of a user between 18 and 60
years (both inclusive).
Boundary values:
● Minimum age: 18
● Maximum age: 60
Boundary test cases:
Test Case ID Input Age Expected Output (Valid/Invalid) Remarks
TC_001 17 Invalid Just below the lower boundary
TC_002 18 Valid At the lower boundary
TC_003 19 Valid Just above the lower boundary
TC_004 59 Valid Just below the upper boundary
TC_005 60 Valid At the upper boundary
TC_006 61 Invalid Just above the upper boundary
Explanation:
● TC_001 (17): Tests the value just below the minimum boundary (invalid).
● TC_002 (18): Tests the exact minimum boundary (valid).
● TC_003 (19): Tests the value just above the minimum boundary (valid).
● TC_004 (59): Tests the value just below the maximum boundary (valid).
● TC_005 (60): Tests the exact maximum boundary (valid).
● TC_006 (61): Tests the value just above the maximum boundary (invalid).
This technique ensures that the application behaves correctly at the edges of the input range,
which are common points for errors or bugs.
Let’s design an example test case for a Login functionality in a web application using
Boundary Value Analysis (BVA).
Scenario: Login Page
The web application allows users to log in with their username and password. The username
must be between 5 to 15 characters, and the password must be between 8 to 12 characters.
Boundary Values:
● Username length: Min = 5, Max = 15
● Password length: Min = 8, Max = 12
Test Cases:
Test Case Expected Output
Username Password Remarks
ID (Login Success/Failure)
Username below
TC_001 Abcd abcdefgh Failure minimum boundary (4
characters)
 Username at minimum
TC_002 Abcde abcdefgh Success
boundary (5 characters)
Username above
TC_003 Abcdef abcdefgh Success minimum boundary (6
characters)
Username below
TC_004 abcdefghijklm abcdefgh Success maximum boundary (14
characters)
Username at maximum
TC_005 abcdefghijklmn abcdefgh Success boundary (15
characters)
Username above
TC_006 abcdefghijklmno abcdefgh Failure maximum boundary (16
characters)
Password below
TC_007 Abcdef abcdefg Failure minimum boundary (7
characters)
Password at minimum
TC_008 Abcdef abcdefgh Success
boundary (8 characters)
Password above
TC_009 Abcdef abcdefghi Success minimum boundary (9
characters)
Password below
TC_010 Abcdef abcdefghijk Success maximum boundary (11
characters)
Password at maximum
TC_011 Abcdef abcdefghijkl Success boundary (12
characters)
Password above
TC_012 Abcdef abcdefghijklm Failure maximum boundary (13
characters)
Explanation:
● Username Boundary Cases:
o Test cases TC_001 to TC_006 test the username length, covering values just
below and above the minimum and maximum boundaries.
● Password Boundary Cases:
o Test cases TC_007 to TC_012 test the password length, covering values just
below and above the boundaries of valid password lengths.
By using BVA, we ensure that we are testing at the critical points where bugs are most likely
to occur.

Example:
Scenario: Online Shopping Cart
● The user can enter a quantity between 1 and 100 for any product to purchase.
Boundary Value Analysis (BVA)
Here, the boundaries are:
● Minimum quantity = 1
 ● Maximum quantity = 100
Test Cases:
Test Case Expected Output
Quantity Remarks
ID (Valid/Invalid)
TC_001 0 Invalid Just below the lower boundary (too low)
At the lower boundary (minimum valid
TC_002 1 Valid
quantity)
TC_003 2 Valid Just above the lower boundary
TC_004 99 Valid Just below the upper boundary
At the upper boundary (maximum valid
TC_005 100 Valid
quantity)
Just above the upper boundary (too
TC_006 101 Invalid
high)
Explanation:
● TC_001: Tests the value just below the minimum valid quantity (invalid).
● TC_002: Tests the minimum valid quantity (valid).
● TC_003: Tests just above the minimum boundary (valid).
● TC_004: Tests just below the maximum valid quantity (valid).
● TC_005: Tests the maximum valid quantity (valid).
● TC_006: Tests the value just above the maximum valid quantity (invalid).

EQUIVALENCE PARTITIONING TEST CASE DESIGN

Equivalence Partitioning (EP) is a black-box testing technique where input data is divided into
partitions or classes that are treated the same by the system. Instead of testing all possible
inputs, testers can select a few values from each partition, assuming that if one condition in the
partition works, the others will too.
Steps for Equivalence Partitioning (EP):
1. Identify the input variables.
2. Divide the input domain into valid and invalid partitions.
3. Select representative values from each partition for testing.
Example Test Case using EP:
Let’s take the same example as before, where we have a Login functionality with a username
and password.
Scenario: Login Page
● The username must be between 5 to 15 characters.
● The password must be between 8 to 12 characters.
Equivalence Partitions:
For the username:
● Partition 1 (Invalid): Less than 5 characters.
● Partition 2 (Valid): Between 5 and 15 characters.
● Partition 3 (Invalid): More than 15 characters.
For the password:
● Partition 1 (Invalid): Less than 8 characters.
● Partition 2 (Valid): Between 8 and 12 characters.
● Partition 3 (Invalid): More than 12 characters.
Test Cases:
Test Case Expected Output (Login
Username Password Remarks
ID Success/Failure)
 Invalid username
TC_001 Abcd abcdefgh Failure (less than 5
characters)
Valid username and
TC_002 Abcde abcdefgh Success
valid password
Invalid username
TC_003 abcdefghijklmnop abcdefgh Failure (more than 15
characters)
Invalid password
TC_004 Abcdef abcdefg Failure (less than 8
characters)
Valid username and
TC_005 Abcdef abcdefghi Success
valid password
Invalid password
TC_006 Abcdef abcdefghijklm Failure (more than 12
characters)
Explanation:
● Username Equivalence Partitions:
o TC_001: Tests the invalid partition where the username is less than 5 characters.
o TC_002: Tests the valid partition where the username is between 5 and 15
characters.
o TC_003: Tests the invalid partition where the username is more than 15
characters.
● Password Equivalence Partitions:
o TC_004: Tests the invalid partition where the password is less than 8 characters.
o TC_005: Tests the valid partition where the password is between 8 and 12
characters.
o TC_006: Tests the invalid partition where the password is more than 12
characters.
Benefits of EP:
● Efficiency: EP reduces the number of test cases by focusing on representative values
from each partition, instead of testing every possible input.
● Coverage: It ensures that each partition (valid and invalid) is tested, giving adequate
coverage of the input space.

Let's consider another example for Boundary Value Analysis (BVA) and Equivalence
Partitioning (EP) for online shopping cart where users can enter the quantity of an item they
want to purchase.
Example
Scenario: Online Shopping Cart
● The user can enter a quantity between 1 and 100 for any product to purchase.

Equivalence Partitioning (EP)

We can divide the input into different equivalence classes:
● Valid partition: Quantities between 1 and 100 (inclusive).
● Invalid partitions:
o Less than 1
o More than 100
Test Cases:
 Expected Output
Test Case ID Quantity Remarks
(Valid/Invalid)
TC_001 0 Invalid Invalid partition (quantity < 1)
TC_002 50 Valid Valid partition (1 ≤ quantity ≤ 100)
TC_003 101 Invalid Invalid partition (quantity > 100)
Explanation:
● TC_001: Tests the invalid partition where the quantity is less than 1 (invalid).
● TC_002: Tests the valid partition where the quantity is between 1 and 100 (valid).
● TC_003: Tests the invalid partition where the quantity is more than 100 (invalid).
 CAUSE EFFECT GRAPHING
Cause-effect graph comes under the black box testing technique which underlines the
relationship between a given result and all the factors affecting the result. It is used to write
dynamic test cases.
The dynamic test cases are used when code works dynamically based on user input. For
example, while using email account, on entering valid email, the system accepts it but, when
you enter invalid email, it throws an error message. In this technique, the input conditions are
assigned with causes and the result of these input conditions with effects.
Cause-Effect graph technique is based on a collection of requirements and used to determine
minimum possible test cases which can cover a maximum test area of the software.
The main advantage of cause-effect graph testing is, it reduces the time of test execution and
cost.
This technique aims to reduce the number of test cases but still covers all necessary test cases
with maximum coverage to achieve the desired application quality.
Cause-Effect graph technique converts the requirements specification into a logical
relationship between the input and output conditions by using logical operators like AND, OR
and NOT.
Notations used in the Cause-Effect Graph
AND - E1 is an effect and C1 and C2 are the causes. If both C1 and C2 are true, then effect E1
will be true.

OR - If any cause from C1 and C2 is true, then effect E1 will be true.

NOT - If cause C1 is false, then effect E1 will be true.

Mutually Exclusive - When only one cause is true.

Let's try to understand this technique with some examples:
Situation:
The character in column 1 should be either A or B and in the column 2 should be a digit. If both
columns contain appropriate values then update is made. If the input of column 1 is incorrect,
i.e. neither A nor B, then message X will be displayed. If the input in column 2 is incorrect, i.e.
input is not a digit, then message Y will be displayed.
o A file must be updated, if the character in the first column is either "A" or "B" and in
the second column it should be a digit.
o If the value in the first column is incorrect (the character is neither A nor B) then
massage X will be displayed.
o If the value in the second column is incorrect (the character is not a digit) then massage
Y will be displayed.

Now, we are going to make a Cause-Effect graph for the above situation:
Causes are:
o C1 - Character in column 1 is A
o C2 - Character in column 1 is B
o C3 - Character in column 2 is digit!
Effects:
o E1 - Update made (C1 OR C2) AND C3
o E2 - Displays Massage X (NOT C1 AND NOT C2)
o E3 - Displays Massage Y (NOT C3)
Where AND, OR, NOT are the logical gates.
Effect E1- Update made- The logic for the existence of effect E1 is "(C1 OR C2) AND C3".
For C1 OR C2, any one from C1 and C2 should be true. For logic AND C3 (Character in
column 2 should be a digit), C3 must be true. In other words, for the existence of effect E1
(Update made) any one from C1 and C2 but the C3 must be true. We can see in graph cause C1
and C2 are connected through OR logic and effect E1 is connected with AND logic.
Effect E2 - Displays Massage X - The logic for the existence of effect E2 is "NOT C1 AND
NOT C2" that means both C1 (Character in column 1 should be A) and C2 (Character in
column 1 should be B) should be false. In other words, for the existence of effect E2 the
character in column 1 should not be either A or B. We can see in the graph, C1 OR C2 is
connected through NOT logic with effect E2.
Effect E3 - Displays Massage Y- The logic for the existence of effect E3 is "NOT C3" that
means cause C3 (Character in column 2 is a digit) should be false. In other words, for the
existence of effect E3, the character in column 2 should not be a digit. We can see in the
graph, C3 is connected through NOT logic with effect E3.
So, it is the cause-effect graph for the given situation. A tester needs to convert causes and
effects into logical statements and then design cause-effect graph. If function gives output
(effect) according to the input (cause) so, it is considered as defect free, and if not doing so,
then it is sent to the
Steps in Cause-Effect Graphing
1. Identify Causes and Effects:
o Causes: Inputs or conditions that affect the system.
o Effects: Outputs or observable behaviors of the system.
2. Create a Cause-Effect Graph:
o Represent causes and effects as nodes.
o Use logical operators (AND, OR, NOT) to connect nodes and establish
relationships.
3. Convert the Graph to a Decision Table:
o Translate the graphical relationships into a tabular format showing cause-effect
combinations.
4. Design Test Cases:
o Derive test cases from the decision table, covering all possible combinations of
causes and effects.
Example: Cause-Effect Graph for a Login System
Scenario:
A login system allows access only when:
1. A valid username is provided (Cause 1).
 2. A valid password is provided (Cause 2).
3. Both username and password must be correct (AND condition).
4. If either input is invalid, access is denied (Effect 1).
Steps:
1. Identify Causes and Effects:
• Causes:
o C1: Valid username.
o C2: Valid password.
• Effect:
o E1: Access is granted.

2. Create a Cause-Effect Graph:

• Represent C1 and C2 as input nodes.
• Connect C1 and C2 with an AND operator to E1.
• Add negations for invalid inputs to handle denial scenarios.
Graph structure:
scss
Copy code
C1 (Valid username) --- AND --- C2 (Valid password) --- E1 (Access granted)

3. Convert to a Decision Table:

Cause (C1) Cause (C2) Effect (E1) Description
1 1 1 Valid username & password
1 0 0 Valid username, invalid password
0 1 0 Invalid username, valid password
0 0 0 Invalid username & password

4. Design Test Cases:

Test Case ID Input (Username) Input (Password) Expected Output
TC1 Valid Valid Access granted
TC2 Valid Invalid Access denied
TC3 Invalid Valid Access denied
TC4 Invalid Invalid Access denied

Advantages of Cause-Effect Graphing

1. Systematic Approach: Ensures all logical combinations of inputs and outputs are
considered.
2. Error Identification: Helps detect missing or incorrect logical relationships in
requirements.
3. Efficient Test Design: Reduces redundant test cases while maintaining thorough
coverage.

CATEGORY PARTITIONING
Category Partitioning is a black-box test case design technique used to generate test cases
systematically by partitioning the input domain into categories and values. It ensures
comprehensive coverage of various input combinations while avoiding redundant test cases.
Steps in Category Partitioning
1. Identify Input Parameters and Outputs:
o List all input parameters and outputs of the system or function.
2. Define Categories:
o Partition each input parameter into categories (equivalence classes) based on
their characteristics.
3. Identify Constraints:
o Define constraints between categories (e.g., dependencies or invalid
combinations).
4. Combine Categories:
o Generate combinations of categories to cover different scenarios.
5. Generate Test Cases:
o Create test cases based on the combinations, ensuring coverage of all
meaningful inputs and outputs.

Example: Online Order System

Scenario:
An online order system processes orders based on:
• Item Type:
o Regular items.
o Fragile items.
• Payment Method:
o Credit card.
o PayPal.
• Shipping Option:
o Standard shipping.
o Express shipping.
• Constraints:
o Fragile items cannot use standard shipping.

Steps to Apply Category Partitioning

1. Identify Input Parameters and Outputs:
• Input Parameters:
o P1: Item type (Regular, Fragile).
o P2: Payment method (Credit card, PayPal).
o P3: Shipping option (Standard, Express).
• Output:
o Order processed successfully or fails.

2. Define Categories:
Parameter Category Values
Item Type (P1) Regular, Fragile Regular, Fragile
Payment Method (P2) Credit card, PayPal Credit card, PayPal
Shipping Option (P3) Standard, Express Standard, Express

3. Identify Constraints:
• If P1 = Fragile, then P3 ≠ Standard.
4. Combine Categories:
• Generate meaningful combinations of categories considering the constraints:
o Regular + Credit Card + Standard.
o Regular + Credit Card + Express.
o Regular + PayPal + Standard.
o Regular + PayPal + Express.
o Fragile + Credit Card + Express.
o Fragile + PayPal + Express.
o (Fragile + Standard is invalid due to the constraint).

5. Generate Test Cases:

Test Case Item Type Payment Method Shipping Option
Expected Output
ID (P1) (P2) (P3)
TC1 Regular Credit Card Standard Order processed
TC2 Regular Credit Card Express Order processed
TC3 Regular PayPal Standard Order processed
TC4 Regular PayPal Express Order processed
TC5 Fragile Credit Card Express Order processed
TC6 Fragile PayPal Express Order processed
Order fails
TC7 Fragile Credit Card Standard
(constraint)

Advantages of Category Partitioning

1. Systematic Coverage: Ensures all valid and invalid combinations of inputs are tested.
2. Constraint Handling: Accounts for dependencies or restrictions between inputs.
3. Efficiency: Reduces redundant testing by focusing on representative values from each
category.
4. Clarity: Provides a clear and structured approach to test case generation.
 TEST GENERATION FROM PREDICATES
Test Case Generation from Predicates is a formal method for deriving test cases using logical
predicates that represent conditions or constraints in a system. Predicates are used to express
input conditions or logical expressions that need to be satisfied. By analyzing these predicates,
test cases can be generated to ensure that the system behaves as expected under different
conditions.
This approach is particularly useful for:
● Testing systems with complex logical conditions.
● Ensuring thorough coverage of input conditions and paths in the software.
Steps for Test Case Generation from Predicates:
1. Identify predicates: Extract logical predicates (conditions) from the system's
specifications, typically from requirements or code.
2. Negation and Combination: Consider all possible combinations of the predicates
being true and false, including boundary and edge cases.
3. Create Test Cases: Generate test cases based on the truth values of the predicates and
ensure that they cover all meaningful combinations.
4. Determine Expected Output: Based on the combination of the predicate values,
determine the expected system behavior.
Example of Test Case Generation from Predicates
Scenario: Access Control System
In an access control system, a user can only log in if the following conditions (predicates) are
true:
● P1: The user’s account is active.
● P2: The user’s password is correct.
● P3: The user has multi-factor authentication (MFA) enabled.
Predicates:
● P1: User's account is active (True/False).
● P2: Password is correct (True/False).
● P3: MFA is enabled (True/False).
Truth Table of Predicates:
Test Case P1 (Account P2 (Password P3 (MFA
Expected Outcome
ID Active) Correct) Enabled)
Success: Login
TC_001 True True True
allowed
Success: Login
TC_002 True True False
allowed
Failure: Incorrect
TC_003 True False True
password
Failure: Incorrect
TC_004 True False False
password
Failure: Account
TC_005 False True True
inactive
Failure: Account
TC_006 False True False
inactive
Failure: Account
TC_007 False False True
inactive
Failure: Account
TC_008 False False False
inactive
Explanation of Test Cases:
 ● TC_001: All predicates are true, allowing the user to log in (valid case).
● TC_002: Even though MFA is not enabled, the login is allowed since it’s not required.
● TC_003 and TC_004: The password is incorrect, so login fails regardless of MFA.
● TC_005 to TC_008: The account is inactive, so login fails regardless of the password
or MFA.
Applications of Test Case Generation from Predicates:
1. Complex systems with multiple conditions: This approach is ideal for systems like
authentication, where multiple conditions (predicates) need to be satisfied
simultaneously.
2. Safety-critical systems: Systems in aerospace, medical devices, or automotive
domains where precise control over conditions is necessary benefit from predicate-
based testing.
3. Formal verification: Predicate-based testing aligns well with formal verification,
ensuring the system adheres to strict logical requirements.
4. Business rule engines: Systems that involve complex business logic with multiple
conditions (e.g., loan approval systems, tax calculators) can use predicates to derive
comprehensive test cases.
Benefits of Predicate-based Test Case Generation:
● Systematic Coverage: Ensures all possible combinations of predicates are covered.
● Thorough Testing: Tests corner cases where certain conditions are just met or just fail.
● Logical Validation: Helps validate that the system behaves correctly under all logical
input combinations.

Example
Let’s consider an example of a flight booking web application that allows users to book
tickets for flights. In this scenario, test cases can be generated from predicates that describe the
conditions under which a user can successfully book a flight.
Scenario: Flight Booking Web Application
The user can book a flight if the following conditions are satisfied:
● P1: The selected flight has available seats.
● P2: The user's payment is successful.
● P3: The user provides valid personal details (name, email, etc.).
Predicates:
● P1: Flight has available seats (True/False).
● P2: Payment is successful (True/False).
● P3: Valid personal details are provided (True/False).
Truth Table of Predicates:
Test Case P1 (Seats P2 (Payment P3 (Valid Personal
Expected Outcome
ID Available) Successful) Details)
Success: Flight booked
TC_001 True True True
successfully
Failure: Invalid personal
TC_002 True True False
details
Failure: Payment
TC_003 True False True
unsuccessful
Failure: Payment and
TC_004 True False False
details failed
Failure: No seats
TC_005 False True True
available
 Failure: No seats and
TC_006 False True False
invalid details
Failure: No seats and
TC_007 False False True
payment failed
Failure: All conditions
TC_008 False False False
failed
Explanation of Test Cases:
● TC_001: All conditions are satisfied, so the flight is booked successfully.
● TC_002: Although the seats are available and payment is successful, the personal
details provided are invalid, so booking fails.
● TC_003: Even though seats are available and personal details are valid, payment fails,
so booking fails.
● TC_004: Both payment and personal details fail, so booking fails.
● TC_005: Even though payment and personal details are valid, there are no seats
available, so booking fails.
● TC_006, TC_007, TC_008: Combinations of failures in seats, payment, and personal
details lead to booking failure in these cases.
Application of Test Case Generation from Predicates:
This approach is useful for testing complex booking systems where multiple factors (seats,
payment, and personal details) interact to determine the system’s behavior. By considering all
possible combinations of these conditions, we ensure the flight booking system behaves
correctly in all scenarios, from successful bookings to various types of failures.
Advantages of Predicate-based Test Case Generation for Web Applications:
1. Comprehensive Coverage: All possible combinations of critical conditions are tested.
2. Early Error Detection: Ensures boundary conditions and edge cases, like partial
failures, are tested early in the process.
3. Automated Testing: This approach can be used to automatically generate test cases for
complex systems where manual test case creation would be time-consuming.
Real-world Applications:
1. E-commerce checkout: Verifying the successful completion of an order based on
conditions like stock availability, successful payment, and valid shipping information.
2. Hotel booking systems: Ensuring all conditions are met for successful booking (room
availability, payment, and valid customer information).
3. Ride-hailing apps: Testing the ride confirmation process based on conditions like
driver availability, successful payment, and user location validation.
This approach guarantees that each significant logical combination of input values has been
evaluated, covering a broad spectrum of cases, from complete success to different types of
failures.

TEST GENERATION FROM FINITE STATE MODEL

Test Case Generation from Finite State Models involves using finite state machines (FSMs)
to represent the behavior of a system in response to various inputs or events. This approach is
particularly useful for systems where different states and transitions dictate the behavior of the
system.
Steps for Test Case Generation from Finite State Models:
1. Identify the states: Determine the different states the system can be in.
2. Define the transitions: Specify how the system transitions from one state to another
based on inputs or events.
3. Create test cases: Generate test cases based on the states and transitions to ensure that
all possible paths through the state machine are tested.
Example: ATM Transaction System
Finite State Model:
Let’s consider an ATM transaction system.
State Transition Diagram:

States:
o S0: Idle (Waiting for card insertion)
o S1: Card Inserted
o S2: Enter PIN
o S3: Transaction Menu (Select Transaction)
o S4: Dispensing Cash
o S5: Transaction Complete
Transitions:
● T1: Insert card (S0 → S1)
● T2: Enter correct PIN (S1 → S2)
● T3: Enter incorrect PIN (S1 → S1)
● T4: Select transaction (S2 → S3)
● T5: Dispense cash (S3 → S4)
● T6: Complete transaction (S4 → S5)
● T7: Cancel transaction (S2, S3 → S0)

--------------Draw state transition diagram here------------

Test Case Generation:

Test Cases based on Finite State Model:
Test Case ID Initial State Input/Event Next State Expected Outcome
TC_001 S0 Insert Card (T1) S1 Transition to S1
TC_002 S1 Enter Correct PIN (T2) S2 Transition to S2
TC_003 S1 Enter Incorrect PIN (T3) S1 Stay in S1, prompt for PIN
TC_004 S2 Select Transaction (T4) S3 Transition to S3
TC_005 S3 Dispense Cash (T5) S4 Transition to S4
TC_006 S4 Complete Transaction (T6) S5 Transition to S5
TC_007 S2 Cancel Transaction (T7) S0 Transition to S0
TC_008 S3 Cancel Transaction (T7) S0 Transition to S0
Explanation of Test Cases:
● TC_001: Tests the initial transition from Idle to Card Inserted.
● TC_002: Tests entering a correct PIN, transitioning to the Enter PIN state.
● TC_003: Tests entering an incorrect PIN, which keeps the system in the Enter PIN
state.
● TC_004: Tests selecting a transaction, transitioning to the Transaction Menu.
● TC_005: Tests dispensing cash, transitioning to the Dispensing Cash state.
● TC_006: Tests completing the transaction, moving to the Transaction Complete state.
● TC_007: Tests canceling the transaction from the Enter PIN state, returning to Idle.
● TC_008: Tests canceling the transaction from the Transaction Menu, also returning to
Idle.
Applications of Test Case Generation from Finite State Models:
1. Embedded Systems: Systems like washing machines, microwave ovens, or other
devices with specific operational modes.
2. Protocol Testing: Communication protocols that have defined states and transitions
based on messages.
3. User Interfaces: Applications with various states (e.g., modal dialogs) where user
interactions lead to different outcomes.
4. Game Development: Game state management, where different states (menu, playing,
paused) determine gameplay behavior.
Benefits of Using Finite State Models for Test Case Generation:
● Thorough Testing: Ensures that all states and transitions are tested, reducing the risk
of missed scenarios.
● Clear Visualization: Provides a clear representation of the system’s behavior and
state transitions.
● Identification of Edge Cases: Helps identify potential edge cases based on state
transitions, ensuring comprehensive coverage.
By using finite state models, we can effectively manage complex behaviors in systems and
ensure that test cases thoroughly evaluate all possible states and transitions.
4o mini