Copyright
Elaine J Weyuker.

On testing nontestable programs online

. (page 1 of 2)
Online LibraryElaine J WeyukerOn testing nontestable programs → online text (page 1 of 2)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Computer Science Department



TECHNICAL REPORT



ON TESTING NONTESTABLE PROGRAMS
BY
ELAINE J. WEYUKER

OCTOBER 198
REPORT NO. 025



NEW YORK UNIVERSITY







o




&


(V


Q\


*


\A




U






Department of Co%)uter Science
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

251 MERCER STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y 10012



ON TESTING NONTESTABLE PROGRAMS
BY
ELAINE J. WEYUKER

OCTOBER 198
REPORT NO. 025



ABSTRACT

A frequently invoked assumption in program testing is that
there is an oracle (i.e., the tester or an external mechanism can
accurately decide whether or not the output produced by a program
is correct.) A program is nontestable if either an oracle does
not exist or the tester must expend some extraordinary amount of
time to determine whether or not the output is correct.

The reasonableness of the oracle assumption is examined and
the conclusion is reached that in many cases this is not a
realistic assumption. The consequences of assuming the
availability of an oracle are examined and alternatives
investigated .



O.J-



1. INTRODUCTION

It is widely accepted that the fundamental limitation of
using program testing techniques to determine the correctness of
a program is the inability to extrapolate from the correctness of
results for a proper subset of the input domain to the program's
correctness for all elements of the domain. In particular, for
any proper subset of the domain there are infinitely many
programs which produce the correct output on those elements, but
produce an incorrect output for some other domain element.
Nonetheless we routinely test programs to increase our confidence
in their correctness, and a great deal of research is currently
being devoted to improving the effectiveness of program testing.
These efforts fall into three primary categories:

1) The development of a sound theoretical basis for testing,

2) Devising and improving testing methodologies,
particularly mechanizable ones,

3) The definition of accurate measures of and criteria for
test data thoroughness.

Almost all of the research on software testing therefore
focuses on the development and analysis of input data. In
particular there is an underlying assumption that once this phase
is complete, the remaining tasks are straightforward. This
consists of running the program on the selected data, producing
output which is then examined to determine the program's
correctness on the test data. That this last phase of output
examination is indeed routine is frequently expressed as the
oracle assumption. This states that the tester is able to



determine whether or not the output produced on the test data is
correct. The mechanism which checks this correctness is known as
an oracle . (See for example [13] or [5].)

Intuitively, it does not seem unreasonable to require that
the tester be able to determine the correct answer in some
"reasonable" amount of time while expending some "reasonable"
amount of effort. Therefore if either of the following two
conditions occur, a program should be considered nontestable .

1) There does not exist an oracle.

2) It is theoretically possible, but practically too
difficult to determine the correct output.

The term nontestable is used since if one cannot decide
whether or not the output is correct or must expend some
extraordinary amount of time to do so, from the point of view of
correctness testing, there is nothing to be gained by performing
the test.

In Section 2 we examine the reasonableness of the oracle and
related assumptions and discuss characteristics of programs for
which such assumptions are not valid. Section 3 considers how to
test such programs and Section 4 discusses the consequences of
accepting the oracle assumption. Section 5 concludes with
suggestions for software users and procurers.

2. THE ORACLE ASSUMPTION AND NONTESTABLE PROGRAMS

Although much of the testing literature describes
methodologies which are predicated on both the theoretical and
practical availability of an oracle, it is our belief that it is



unusual for such an oracle to be pragmatically attainable or even
to exist. That is not to say that the tester has no idea what
the correct answer is. Frequently the tester is able to state
with assurance that a result is incorrect without actually
knowing the correct answer. This corresponds to the concept of a
decision problem being partially solvable but not recursively
solvable, and will be known as a partial oracle . Recall that
many well-known problems of recursive function theory, including
the halting problem, fall into the partially solvable category.
(See [7] or [9] for definitions of these terms and a discussion
of these concepts.) Furthermore, it has been shown ([10], [11])
that many properties of programs which are of particular interest
in program testing have partially solvable, but not recursively
solvable decision problems. Included are whether a statement of
a program is semantically reachable, whether a given branch is
traversable, and whether a given path can be traversed.

As a simple example of the ability to detect incorrect
results without knowing the correct result, consider the
calculation of the total assets of a large corporation. $100 is
not a plausible result, nor is $1000. $1,000,000 might be
considered by the tester a potentially correct result, but a
specialist, such as the corporation's comptroller, might have
enough information to determine that it is incorrect while
$1,100,000 is plausible. It is unlikely that the comptroller can
readily determine that $1,134,906.43 is correct, and
$1,135,627.85 is incorrect. Thus even an expert may accept
incorrect but plausible answers as correct results. The



expertise generally permits the restricting of the range of
plausible results so that fewer incorrect results fall into this
range .

Even if the tester does not know the correct answer, it is
sometimes possible to assign some measure of likelihood to
different values. For example, if a program which is to compute
the sine function is to be tested, and one of the test data

e

selected is 42 , one could begin by saying that if the output is
less than -1 or greater than 1, then there is an error. Thus an

answer of 3 is known to be incorrect without the actual value of

o

sin 42 being known. What one frequently tries to do is

repeatedly refine the range of plausible outputs until very few
possible answers are acceptable. To continue with the sine
example, we know that sin 30 = .5000 and sin 45 = .7071 and

that the sine function is strictly increasing on that interval.

o

Thus the plausible range for sin 42 has been further restricted.

Furthermore, since the curve between 30** and 45** is convex
upwards, a straight line approximation provides a lower bound of

.6657 for sin 42 . This type of analysis has allowed us to say

o

that .6657 < sin 42 < .7071. At this point the tester may not

have available any additional information to allow the further
restriction of the range of allowable values. Nonetheless, the
tester may know that since the sine curve is relatively flat
between 30 and 45 , the straight line approximation should be
quite good. Therefore it follows that the actual value of sin
42 is much more likely to fall near the low end of the
acceptable range than near the high end. Note that we have not



assumed' or established a probability distribution, but
nonetheless have a notion of likelihood.

The foregoing examples were intended to contrast the
disparity between the assumptions made in the testing research
literature, and the situations faced by testing practitioners. A
secondary purpose of the example is to demonstrate one technique
for restricting the range of possible outputs when the precise
answer cannot be readily determined. Other examples and partial
solutions are given in later sections.

It is interesting to attempt to identify classes of programs
which are nontestable. These include:

1) Programs which were written to determine the answer. If
the correct answer were known, there would have been no need to
write the program.

2) Programs which produce so much output that it is
impractical to verify all of it.

3) Programs for which the tester has a misconception. In
such a case, there are two distinct sets of specifications. The
tester is comparing the output against a set of specifications
which differs from the original problem specifications.

We note that the existence of tester misconceptions argues
convincingly for testing groups which are independent from
programming groups, and when possible the involvement of several
different testers in order to minimize the likelihood of
coinciding misconceptions. It also argues for precise
specifications and documentation, before implementation begins.

For a program to fall into the second category described



above, it need not produce reams of output. A single output page
containing columns of 30 digit numbers may simply be too tedious
to check completely. Typically, programs in this class are
accepted either by the tester "eyeballing" the output to see that
it "looks okay" or by examining in detail portions of the output
(particularly portions known to be error-prone) and inferring the
correctness of all the output from the correctness of these
portions .

A common solution to the problem for programs in both
categories 1 and 2 is to restrict attention to "simple" data.
This will be discussed in the next section.

Testing programs in the third category presents radically
different problems. In the other cases, the tester is aware that
there is no oracle available (either because of lack of existence
or inaccessibility) and must find approximations to an oracle.
In this third case, however, the tester believes there is an
oracle, i.e., he believes he knows or can ascertain the correct
answers. This implies that if an input is selected which is not
processed in accordance with the tester's misconception, but is
rather processed correctly, the tester/oracle believes the
program contains an error and therefore attempts to debug it.
The consequences of this situation are discussed in Section 4.

3. TESTING WITHOUT AN ORACLE

Having argued that many, if not most programs are by our
definition nontestable, we are faced with two obvious questions.
The first is why do researchers assume the availability of an



oracle? There seem to be two primary reasons. Many of the
programs which appear in the testing literature are simple enough
to make this a realistic assumption. Furthermore, it simply
allows one to proceed. The second and more fundamental question
is how does one proceed when it is known that no oracle is
available? We are certainly not arguing for the abandonment of
testing as a primary means of determining the presence or absence
of software errors, and feel strongly that the systematization
and improvement of testing techniques is one of the foremost
problems in software engineering today.

Perhaps the ideal way to test a program when we do not have
an oracle is to write another program based on an independent
algorithm and compare the results. This comparison might be done
manually, although frequently a comparison program will also be
necessary. In particular, if the reason that the program was
deemed nontestable was due to the volume or tediousness of the
output, it would be just as impractical to compare the results
manually as to verify them initially.

In a sense, this new program might be considered an oracle,
for if the results of the two programs agree, the tester will
consider the original results correct. If the results do not
match, the validity of the original results is at least called
into question.

The notion of writing multiple independent programs or
subroutines to accomplish a single goal has been proposed in
other contexts, particularly in the area of fault tolerant
computing [1], [4], [8]. The motivation there, however, is



fundamentally different. In the case of fault tolerant systems,
alternate programs are frequently run only after it has been
determined that the original routine contains an error. In that
case a partial oracle must also be assumed. There have also been
suggestions of "voting" systems [1] for which the programmer
writes multiple versions of routines and a consensus is used to
determine the correct output. This is generally only proposed
for highly critical software - not for routine cases as discussed
above. We, in contrast, are discussing the use of an alternate
program or programs to determine whether or not the original
program functions correctly on some inputs.

There are two reasons why the use of multiple programs for
testing is generally not practical. Obviously such a treatment
requires a great deal of overhead. At least two programs must be
written, and if the output comparison is to be done automatically
three programs are required to produce what one hopes will be a
single result. Furthermore, each of these programs must be
debugged and tested. That such overhead might be worthwhile in
some cases is obvious, but for most applications it is simply
unreasonable .

The other primary practical objection is the requirement
that the algorithms be independent. One is frequently lucky to
have one algorithm to solve a problem. Finding a second
algorithm, and showing that the two algorithms are independent,
may well be formidable tasks.

A different, and frequently employed course of action is to
run the program on "simplified" data for which the correctness of



the results can be accurately and readily determined. The tester
then extrapolates from the correctness of the test results on
these simple cases to correctness for more complicated cases. In
a sense, that is what is always done when testing a program.
Short of exhaustive testing, we are always left to deduce the
correctness of the program for untested portions of the domain.
But in this case we are deliberately omitting test cases even
though these cases may have been identified as important. They
are not being omitted because it is not expected that they will
yield substantial additional information, but rather because they
are too difficult, expensive or impossible to check.

For those programs deemed nontestable due to a lack of
knowledge in general of the correct answer, there are nonetheless
frequently simple cases for which the exact correct result is
known. A program to generate base 2 logarithms might be tested
only on numbers of the form 2 . A program to find the largest
prime less than some integer n might be tested on small values of
n.

In the case of programs which produce excessive amounts of
output, testing on simplified data might involve minor
modifications of the program. For example, a program intended to
generate all permutations of ten elements should output 3,628,800
permutations, surely too many to check or even count manually.
The addition of a counter to the program could be used to verify
that the correct quantity of output is produced, but not that the
output is correct. One might modify the program slightly and
make the number of elements to be permuted a program parameter.



10



If the tester then tests the program on a small input such as 4,
the correctness of these results could be readily checked, as
there are only 24 such permutations.

Note that this example is of interest for another reason:
it is an inputless program. In other words it is a program that
is intended to do a single computation. If the proper result is
not known in such a case, the only way to test it is to modify it
in some way, usually by making some fixed value a parameter, and
then testing the more general program on input for which the
results are known.

The problem with relying upon results obtained by testing
only on simple cases is obvious. Experience tells us that it is
frequently the "complicated" cases that are most error-prone. It
is common for central cases to work perfectly while boundary
cases cause errors. And of course by looking only at simple
cases, errors due to overflow conditions, roundoff problems and
truncation errors are likely to be missed.

We have now argued that programs are frequently nontestable,
in the sense of lacking ready access to an oracle, and suggested
two ways of testing such programs. The first of these
suggestions, writing multiple independent routines, is frequently
discarded as being impractical. The second technique of looking
at simplified data is commonly used by testers and is
satisfactory for locating certain types of errors but is
unsatisfactory for errors which are particularly associated with
large or boundary values.

The third alternative is to simply accept plausible results.



11



but with an awareness that they have not been certified as
correct. As in the case of the sine program described in Section
2, a useful technique is to attempt to successively narrow the
range of plausible results and even assign a probabilistic
measure to potential plausible answers or at least some relative
measure of likelihood. The sine example allowed us to
demonstrate this technique by employing information known about
the sine function's behavior.

One other class of nontestable programs deserves mention.
These are programs for which not only an oracle is lacking, but
it is not even possible to determine the plausibility of the
output. One cannot be expected to have any intuition about the
correct value of the one thousandth digit of Tr. Furthermore
there is no acceptable tolerance of error. The result is either
right or wrong. Since plausibility may be thought of as an
unspecified, yet intuitively understood, level of acceptable
error, the tester is faced with a serious dilemma. One way to
deal with this problem is to devise an independent algorithm and
compare the results. The other method is to apply the technique
of testing with simplified data. The limitations associated with
these approaches must be borne in mind. For this example, the
program could be slightly modified to generate the first n digits
of T^ rather than just the desired one thousandth digit, and then
tested with n = 10. Since these values are well-known, and can
be easily checked, one might deduce, subject to the limitations
discussed earlier, that provided these digits are correct, the
desired one is also correct. This too may be considered an



12



example of acceptance by plausibility.

4. THE CONSEQUENCES OF TESTING WITHOUT AN ORACLE

We now consider the consequences of accepting the oracle
assumption. There are two distinct situations which deserve
mention and consideration. The first is when an output result is
actually correct, but the tester/oracle determines that it is
incorrect. This is the less common of the two cases and
frequently represents a tester misconception.

There are several possible consequences of such an incorrect
"oracle" output. In any case, time is wasted while someone tries
to locate the nonexistent error. It may also cost time if it
causes a delay in the release of the program while useless
debugging is going on. Of course an even more serious problem
occurs when the tester or debugger modifies the correct program
in order to "fix" it and thereby makes it incorrect.

The other, and more common situation, is when the actual
result is incorrect, but the tester/oracle believes it is
correct. It is well known that many (if not most) programs which
have been tested and validated and released to the field, still
contain errors. However, we are discussing a fundamentally
different situation. In general whenever nonexhaustive testing
has been done, there remains a potential for error. But it is
expected that the aspects of the program which have been tested
and accepted as correct, actually are correct. At the very least
the specific data points on which the program has been run are
understood to yield correct results. When this is not the case.



13



even exhaustive testing does not guarantee freedom from error.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Although much of the testing literature routinely assumes
the availability of an oracle, it appears, based on discussions
with testing practitioners (i.e., people who work in independent
testing groups) that testers are frequently aware that they do
not have an oracle available. They recognize that they have at
best a good idea of the correct result (i.e., plausibility on a
restricted range) and sometimes very little idea what the correct
result should be.

It is apparent that the software user community has by and
large willingly accepted a caveat emptor attitude. We suggest
that the following five items be considered an absolute minimal
standard part of documentation:

1) The test data the program was run on.

2) The criteria used to select the test data. For example,
were they selected to cause the traversal of each program branch,
were they cases that proved troublesome in previous versions of
the software, were data selected to test each program function,
or were the test cases simply chosen at random?

3) The degree to which the criteria were fulfilled. Were
100% of the branches traversed or 30%?

4) The output produced for each test datum.

5) The reasons why the test results were deemed correct or
acceptable.

Although such information does not solve the problem of



14



nontestable programs, it does at least give the user more
information to decide whether or not the program should be
accepted as adequately tested, rather than simply accepting the
programmer's or tester's assurances that the software is ready
for use or distribution.

As the fields of software engineering in general, and
program testing in particular develop, it appears likely that
increased emphasis will be placed upon the development of
criteria for determining the adequacy of test data. Not only
will we have to write programs to fulfill specified tasks, we
will also have to be able to certify that they work as claimed.
This is routinely required of hardware producers.

To develop such criteria, we must be able to state precisely
what we have been able to show about the program. One of the
currently used criteria for adequacy requires the traversal of
each branch of the program [6]. Many people including [2], [3],
and [12] have discussed at length why such a criterion is a poor
indicator of program test adequacy. It might be argued, however,
that its virtue is clear. We are able to state precisely what
has been demonstrated; i.e., we are able to make statements such
as "all but three of the branches of the program have been
traversed", or "96% of the branches have been traversed." But
even these are not quite accurate statements of what is known.
Implicit in such statements is the assumption that the branches
have been traversed and yielded the correct results . But as we
have argued, this cannot in general be determined. Hence this
and any other such criterion of adequacy suffers from the



15'



fundamental flaws which we have discussed. Therefore, as testing
research progresses and testing methodologies continually
improve, we see that there are two fundamental barriers which
must be faced. The first is the unsolvability results mentioned
earlier in this paper and discussed elsewhere in the literature.
But these are largely of a theoretical nature. The second
barrier, however, is a real, pragmatic problem which must in some
sense be faced each time a program is tested. We must ask, and
be able to determine, whether or not the results obtained are
correct. This, we believe, is the fundamental limitation that
testers must face.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Paul Abrahams, Tom Anderson, Tom Ostrand, and
Sandi Rapps for their comments and helpful suggestions. Thanks
also to Marilyn Grossman for her careful and cheerful typing of
the paper.



16



REFERENCES

1. Avizienis, A. and L. Chen. On the Implementation of
N-Version Programming for Software Fault-Tolerance During Program
Execution, Proceedings of COMPSAC Conference , 1977, 149-155.

2. DeMillo, R.A. , RoJ. Lipton, and F.G. Sayward. Hints on Test
Data Selection: Help for the Practicing Programmer, Computer ,
Vol. 11, No. 4, April 1978, 34-41.

3. Goodenough, J.B. and S.L. Gerhart. Toward a Theory of
Testing: Data Selection Criteria, in Current Trends in
Programming Methodology Vol. 2, ed . R.T. Yeh, Prentice-Hall,
1977, 44-79.

4. Horning, J.J., H.C. Lauer, P.M. Melliar-Smith, and
B. Randell. A Program Structure for Error Detection and
Recovery, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science , Vol. 16,
Springer, 1974, 177-193.


1

Online LibraryElaine J WeyukerOn testing nontestable programs → online text (page 1 of 2)