영문목차
Title page=0,1,4
TABLE OF CONTENTS=iii,5,4
LIST OF TABLES=vii,9,1
LIST OF FIGURES=viii,10,2
ABSTRACT=x,12,2
1. INTRODUCTION=1,14,1
1.1 Focus of this Research=2,15,1
1.1.1 Component Customization and Composition=2,15,1
1.1.2 Testing Components=2,15,2
1.1.3 Fault-based Testing=3,16,2
1.1.4 Effectiveness=4,17,1
1.1.5 Test Automation=4,17,1
1.2 Contributions=5,18,3
1.3 Organization of this Dissertation=7,20,1
2. RELATED WORK=8,21,1
2.1 Component Testing Strategies=8,21,3
2.2 Component Customization=10,23,2
2.3 Component Composition=11,24,2
2.4 Enterprise JavaBeans=13,26,1
2.5 Component Object Model=14,27,1
2.6 Component Test Tools=14,27,1
2.6.1 Test Expert=15,28,1
2.6.2 Remote Agent=15,28,1
2.6.3 Load Runner=15,28,2
3. AN APPROACH FOR THE CUSTOMIZATION TESTING AND THE COMPOSITION TESTING=17,30,1
3.1 An Approach for the Customization Testing=17,30,1
3.1.1 Definitions=17,30,6
3.1.2 Component Customization Pattern=22,35,2
3.1.3 Customization Pattern in Various Component Architectures=24,37,6
3.1.4 Test Data Selection=29,42,1
3.2 An Approach for the Composition Testing=30,43,1
3.2.1 Definitions=30,43,6
3.2.2 Component Composition Pattern=35,48,1
3.2.3 Test Data Selection=35,48,2
3.3 Why FIT=36,49,3
4. COMPONENT CUSTOMIZATION TESTING TECHNIQUE=39,52,1
4.1 Component Customization Testing Technique for EJB=39,52,1
4.1.1 FIT and FIO for EJB=39,52,3
4.1.2 An Example=41,54,5
4.2 Component Customization Testing Technique for COM=45,58,1
4.2.1 FIT and FIO for COM=45,58,2
4.2.2 An Example=47,60,4
5. COMPONENT COMPOSITION TESTING TECHNIQUE=51,64,1
5.1 Component Composition Testing Technique for EJB=51,64,1
5.1.1 FIT and FIO for EJB=51,64,3
5.1.2 An Example=53,66,3
5.2 Component Composition Testing Technique for COM=56,69,1
5.2.1 FIT and FIO for COM=56,69,2
5.2.2 An Example=57,70,4
6. TESTING TOOL FOR EJB CUSTOMIZATION AND EJB COMPOSITION=61,74,2
6.1 Architecture of TECC=62,75,1
6.1.1 Components of TECC=63,76,4
6.1.2 Class Diagrams=66,79,8
6.2 Using TECC=73,86,2
6.2.1 Setting Phase=74,87,5
6.2.2 Testing Phase=78,91,4
6.2.3 Analyzing Phase=82,95,3
6.3 Proposed Enhancements to TECC=85,98,1
6.4 Comparison of TECC with other Tools=86,99,2
7. EMPIRICAL STUDY=88,101,1
7.1 Effectiveness Criteria=89,102,1
7.2 Comparisons=89,102,1
7.2.1 Interface Mutation=89,102,2
7.2.2 Mutation Testing=91,104,1
7.2.3 White-box Testing Technique:Data Flow=91,104,2
7.3 Results of the Empirical Study=92,105,1
7.3.1 The Empirical Study on the Customization Testing under EJB=93,106,8
7.3.2 The Empirical Study on the Customization Testing under COM=100,113,7
7.3.3 The Empirical Study on the Composition Testing under EJB=106,119,8
7.3.4 The Empirical Study on the Composition Testing under COM=113,126,7
7.4 Summary=119,132,2
8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH=121,134,1
8.1 Summary of Our Work=121,134,1
8.1.1 Patterns of Component Customization and Component Composition=121,134,1
8.1.2 Testing Components=122,135,1
8.1.3 Fault-based Testing=122,135,1
8.1.4 Effectiveness=122,135,1
8.1.5 Test Automation=123,136,1
8.2 Future Research=123,136,2
REFERENCES=125,138,4
[abstract in korean]=129,142,3
APPENDIX A:Design Specifications of TECC=132,145,11
APPENDIX B:Data of the Empirical Study=143,156,1
B-1: Faults used in the empirical study=143,156,18
B-2: Calculating Eff₁ and Eff₂=161,174,4
[acknowledgement]=165,178,2
Table3.1 Customization patterns in component architectures=29,42,1
Table3.2 Composition patterns=35,48,1
Table4.1 Operations for modifying the deployment descriptor=40,53,1
Table4.2 FITs and FIOs of the EJB customization patterns=41,54,1
Table4.3 A part of the test data for testing Trading component=44,57,1
Table4.4 FITs and FIOs of VB COM=46,59,1
Table4.5 A part of the test data for testing DAQUM component=50,63,1
Table5.1 FITs and FIOs of the EJB composition pattern=53,66,1
Table5.2 FITs and FIOs of COM=57,70,1
Table5.3 A part of the test data for testing the composition of DAQUAM_Framwork=60,73,1
Table7.1 EJB applications used in the empirical study of EJB customization testing=93,106,1
Table7.2 The values from the empirical study of EJB customization testing=95,108,1
Table7.3 COM applications used in the empirical study of COM customization testing=101,114,1
Table7.4 The values from the empirical study of COM customization testing=102,115,1
Table7.5 EJB applications used in the empirical study of EJB composition testing=107,120,1
Table7.6 The values from the empirical study of EJB composition testing=109,122,1
Table7.7 COM applications used in the empirical study of COM composition testing=114,127,1
Table7.8 The values from the empirical study of COM composition testing=115,128,1
Figure2.1 'BONUS' EJB application=12,25,1
Figure2.2 Structural elements and organization of an EJB component=13,26,1
Figure2.3 Interaction between COM component and client=14,27,1
Figure3.1 Component customization and fault injection=21,34,1
Figure3.2 Component composition and fault injection=34,47,1
Figure4.1 The source code of Trading component's cW=43,56,1
Figure4.2 Chamois component systems=47,60,1
Figure4.3 Structural elements of the DAQUM component=48,61,1
Figure4.4 cBW and fBW of DAQUM=49,62,1
Figure5.1 The source code of W ̄ in CU(이미지참조)=54,67,1
Figure5.2 A part of the source code of W ̄ in fCU(이미지참조)=54,67,1
Figure5.3 DAQUM_Framwork=58,71,1
Figure5.4 The composition code added to DAQUM=59,72,1
Figure6.1 The component diagram of TECC=63,76,1
Figure6.2 The packages of TECC=66,79,1
Figure6.3 The class diagram of the manager=67,80,1
Figure6.4 The class diagram of the fault injector=69,82,1
Figure6.5 The class diagram of the tester=70,83,1
Figure6.6 The class diagram of the analyzer=73,86,1
Figure6.7 The usecase diagram of TECC=74,87,1
Figure6.8 The display for managing projects=75,88,1
Figure6.9 The display for creating a session=77,90,1
Figure6.10 The display for setting a session=77,90,1
Figure6.11 The display for managing sessions=77,90,1
Figure6.12 The display for generating the fault-injected versions=79,92,1
Figure6.13 The display for gathering the information=80,93,1
Figure6.14 The display for comparing the result of a test data with the expected output=81,94,1
Figure6.15 The display of the effectiveness=83,96,1
Figure6.16 The display of the relation of the methods to the test data=84,97,1
Figure6.17 The display of the execution time=84,97,1
Figure7.1 Eff₁of the customization testing for the EJB applications=97,110,1
Figure7.2 Eff₂of the customization testing for the EJB applications=98,111,1
Figure7.3 The number of mutants or fBWs in the EJB customization testing=99,112,1
Figure7.4 Eff₂per one mutant or fBW of the EJB customization testing=100,113,1
Figure7.5 Eff₁of the customization testing for the COM applications=103,116,1
Figure7.6 Eff₂of the customization testing for the COM applications=104,117,1
Figure7.7 The number of fBWs or mutants in the COM customization testing=105,118,1
Figure7.8 Eff₂per one mutant or fBW of the COM customization testing=106,119,1
Figure7.9 Eff₁of the composition testing for the EJB Applications=110,123,1
Figure7.10 Eff₂of the composition testing for the EJB applications=111,124,1
Figure7.11 The number of mutants or fCUs in the EJB composition=112,125,1
Figure7.12 Eff₂per one mutant or fCU of the EJB composition testing=113,126,1
Figure7.13 Eff₁of the composition testing for the COM applications=116,129,1
Figure7.14 Eff₂of the composition testing for the COM applications=117,130,1
Figure7.15 The number of mutants or fCUs of the COM composition testing=118,131,1
Figure7.16 Eff₂per one mutant or fCU of the COM composition testing=119,132,1