search

retest / gui-state-machine-api

API for the creation and modification of incomplete state machines which represent the exploration of a GUI application.
2 stars 1 forks source link

Rename #16

Open tdauth opened 5 years ago

tdauth commented 5 years ago

Actually, it is not an NFA because it is incomplete (missing complete transition table). It's a set of action execution paths. Maybe change the name or at least remove NFA from the description. Can we keep the name state machine? It's not a finite state machine because we do not know the number of states? The number of states should be finite? It's a set of execution paths.

beatngu13 commented 5 years ago

I think I still like "SUT model" or "GUI model", respectively, "sut-model" or "gui-model" for the artifact ID. It appears to be compliant with Stachowiak's model theory:

  1. Mapping: Models are always models of something, i.e. mappings from, representations of natural or artificial originals, that can be models themselves.

Our mapping is GUI paths of the SUT.

  1. Reduction: Models in general capture not all attributes of the original represented by them, but rather only those seeming relevant to their model creators and/ or model users.

We only capture those GUI paths we know …

  1. Pragmatism: Models are not uniquely assigned to their originals per se. They fulfill their replacement function a) for particular – cognitive and/ or acting, model using subjects, b) within particular time intervals and c) restricted to particular mental or actual operations.

… because that's enough.

tdauth commented 5 years ago

I think I still like "SUT model" or "GUI model", respectively, "sut-model" or "gui-model" for the artifact ID. It appears to be compliant with Stachowiak's model theory:

  1. Mapping: Models are always models of something, i.e. mappings from, representations of natural or artificial originals, that can be models themselves.

Our mapping is GUI paths of the SUT.

  1. Reduction: Models in general capture not all attributes of the original represented by them, but rather only those seeming relevant to their model creators and/ or model users.

We only capture those GUI paths we know …

  1. Pragmatism: Models are not uniquely assigned to their originals per se. They fulfill their replacement function a) for particular – cognitive and/ or acting, model using subjects, b) within particular time intervals and c) restricted to particular mental or actual operations.

… because that's enough.

SUT model or state graph would be fine for me as was state machine. Maybe the argument about incomplete models was that you do capture all attributes in a model but all instances of the attributes you capture? Who decides which name we will use? Maybe just keep the current name and avoid more work?

edit: From the EXSYST paper:

The UI model represents our knowledge of the possible application behavior. This information is contained in a state machine that we create from observing actual executions of the application under test.

so they mention state machine, UI model and I read somewhere something like an EFG (Event Flow Graph)? MS told me in the beginning its like a state machine, later he said a state machine must be complete.

beatngu13 commented 5 years ago

Maybe just keep the current name and avoid more work?

I would stick to the current naming too, simply to avoid work as well. However, as soon as we get to the paper, we have to pick a name.

Who decides which name we will use?

I would suggest to do this along with @sulzmann next time the three of us meet.