STARS Banquet

At the STARS banquet, I presented a short overview of the research on Combinatorial Testing. I was glad when Dr. Xie said I did a good job and also commented on my flaws. The main flaw was I did not focus on the selling point of our approach, which is the fault-detection capability. The presentation would have been a lot better if I had made that point clearer. Overall, the banquet went very well and I met Ken Tate, one of the Director of Development & External Relations in the Department of Computer Science. This banquet served as a great networking opportunity, but unfortunately, I left my business cards in my room.

Readings & Poster

I have been reading further in the book on pragmatic thinking and am trying to apply its teachings towards aspects of research, (i.e. the paper and poster). I am still in the process of revising the paper, focusing on its lack of logical flow in order to improve it. Although I have the content in the poster paper, I am still plaguing myself with questions as far as converting the information into an actual poster. JeeHyun has been a great help and, with his help, I'm sure we shall create a great poster to present at the Tapia 2009 conference.

Functionality of Driver

I have a question regarding how the tool JPF would operate on the test driver I am writing.

Referring to the sample code Suresh sent me...

static testDriver(){
sequence generation;
}

One of my supposed testMethods...

testAdd(){
testDriver()

conduct testing operations & report differences
}

My question pertains to simply calling the testDriver method in each testMethod in order to generate the sequences, as opposed to reproducing the same code found in the testDriver in each and every test method.

iTutor Approach & Other Ideas

I've compiled my thoughts on the approach and began writing the paper. This section includes my understanding of the tool's functionality as well as possible routes the project may take, if feasible. I have also included a file which contains what I perceive as an example test driver and emailed it along with the paper to Suresh & Kunal for their approval.

I have also picked up the Pragmatic Thinking & Learning text Dr. Xie put on the shelf last week. I shall begin reading this weekend, as I wait for a response.

iTutor: Method Sequences/Declarations

Posted on Saturday December 20, 2008 by Bellanov Apilli

I met with Dr. Xie to discuss my progress on the project. We decided that I should begin writing the "examples" section on the paper as a means to confirm the correctness of my possible implementation. As such, I will create examples and what I expect their output to look like. As far as parameters that each method may require go, Dr. Xie suggested declaring methods after analyzing its contents. For now, I will write the paper and submit my writing to Kunal and Suresh for verification.

iTutor: passing of parameters

Posted on Wednesday December 03, 2008 by Bellanov Apilli

While continuing on the test driver and implementing each method's respective switch statement, the problem I've come across relates to the passing of parameters. Take the following case:

case 1:{
addItem(item);
break;
}

It simply invokes the addItem method, sending the parameter "item". As you've instructed, this parameter should go in the method declaration, which brought about another question.

In my mind, the proposed method declaration would be as follows:
addItem(int a, int item1, int item2, int item3, ... )

Where each "item" will map with its respective method call (the method that needs the said parameter). I am formulating to append to this "item" information into the data structure, assigning each item value soon after the class decompression. I just wish for confirmation so that everything I've been doing isn't in vain.

iTutor - Next Steps - Sequence Generation

Posted on Sunday November 23, 2008 by Bellanov Apilli

Kunal has recently showed me how the method sequences will be generated using a switch statement. As I've come to find yet again, the passing of parameters makes things more complex. My question pertains to whether or not JCute can work with variables declared locally in each test driver method.

For instance, take into account that this is the testAddItem method.

void testAddItem(int a)

case 1: {
int item = 0;
stObj.add(item);
taObj.add(item);
break;
}

I initially have a parameter coming in (int a) but am unsure as to whether or not it is useful anymore. My question still lies in whether or not I can declare parameters I may need within each case block, as opposed to sending them all to the method declaration (where (int a) is).

Other than the above, I am beginning to see how this will come in altogether and will try to complete the test driver over the upcoming break.