In previous assignments our group has viewed the SUT as a stateful input-output
system.
-\subsection{Behaviour of the SUT}\label{subsec:behaviour}
+\subsection{Behaviour of the SUT} \label{subsec:behaviour}
When considering the behaviour of the SUT we abstract away from some details to
limit the scope of the project. We will only consider the behaviour as the
sequence of input output flags. All other details required will be implemented
Both JTorX and \GAST use on-line checking. They test the SUT on the fly by
syncing state transitions in the internal model of the SUT with observed output (after input) from the SUT.
-%iets over ease of use van test model generation
\ No newline at end of file
+For JTorX test generation was very simple since it accepts models in GraphViz
+DOT language, which is also the language used for describing the models for this
+report. For \GAST the model generation required a bit more work, as the model
+is written as a function in Clean. This translation is however easily done by
+hand. Because the model for \GAST is written as a function in Clean it is very
+expressive, the modeling method chosen for JTorX however is a lot less
+expressive, as it just allows for specification of states and transition labels
+between them. However JTorX allows for many different modeling languages, which
+can be more expressive than modeling using GraphViz models \cite{JTorXSite}.
+However, for our tests GraphViz models were expressive enough.
\ No newline at end of file
year={2003},
publisher={Springer}
}
-
+@misc{JTorXSite,
+ title = {JTorX - FMT Tools},
+ howpublished = {\url{https://fmt.ewi.utwente.nl/redmine/projects/jtorx/wiki/}},
+ note = {Accessed: 2015-12-26}
+}