Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Validation of Internet Applications
Karlstad University, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Communication and IT.
2006 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Magister), 20 points / 30 hpStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Today, testing applications for Internet (web sites and other applications) is being verified using

proprietary test solutions. An application is developed and another application is developed to

test the first one. Test Competence Centre at Ericsson AB has expertise on testing telecom

applications using TTCN-2 and TTCN-3 notations. These notations have lot of potential and are

being used for testing in various areas. So far, not much work has been done on using TTCN

notations for testing Internet application. This thesis was a step through which the

capabilities/possibilities of the TTCN notation (in Web testing) could be determined.

This thesis presents investigation results of the 3 different test technologies/tools (TTCN-2,

TTCN-3 and a proprietary free software, PureTest) to see which one is the best for testing

Internet Applications and what are the drawbacks/benefits each technology has.

The background topics included are brief introduction of software testing and web testing, short

introduction of TTCN language and its version 2 and 3, description of the tool set representing

the chosen technologies, conceptual view of how the tools work, a short description of HTTP

protocol and description of HTTP adapter (Test Port).

Several benefits and drawbacks were found from all the three technologies but it can be said that

at the moment proprietary test solutions (PureTest in this case) is still the best tool to test Internet

Application. It scores over other the two technologies (TTCN-2 and TTCN-3) due to reason like

flexibility, cost effectiveness, user friendliness, small lead times for competence development etc.

TTCN-3 is more of a programming language and is certainly more flexible when compared to

TTCN-2. TTCN-3 is still evolving and it can be said that it holds promise. Some of the features

are missing which are vital for testing Internet Applications but are better than TTCN-2.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2006. , p. 95
Keywords [en]
Computer Science Internet
National Category
Computer Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-449OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kau-449DiVA, id: diva2:6111
Presentation
2006-10-09
Uppsok
teknik
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2006-11-13 Created: 2006-11-13 Last updated: 2018-01-11

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(640 kB)2684 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 640 kBChecksum MD5
2e111a59881012e83f3847beac52dce65b4652ba3f7129fcbeebdcdef1793712514cb84e
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Faculty of Economic Sciences, Communication and IT
Computer Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 2684 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 874 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf