Bachelor and Master Theses

Title: Defining and tracing requirements for software integration testing
Subject: Computer Science
Level: Advanced
Description: In software integration testing, the software components are combined and tested to evaluate the interaction between them. In order to efficiently and effectively perform integration testing, the requirements need to be defined at a useful level.

“Defining requirements at abstraction levels well-matched to test cases” is described as a challenge in Bjarnason et al. [1]. A particular instance of this challenge is at the software integration testing level since requirements need to be identified at an abstraction level useful for software integration. If integration testing lacks a useful granulation of requirements, time will be wasted in clarifying such requirements from experts and/or identifying other relevant sources of information.

Apart from defining requirements at the integration level, such requirements need to be traceable to requirements at other levels as well as other development artefacts including test cases. Gotel and Finkelstein [2] define requirement traceability as “the ability to describe and follow the life of a requirement in both forwards and backwards direction (i.e., from its origins, through its development and specification to its, subsequent deployment and use, and through periods of on-going refinement and iteration in any of these phases)”. Besides this definition, Sommerville and Kontonya [3] describe different types of traceability.

With the stated background, the thesis should address the following research questions:

RQ1: How and in what way requirements can be elicited that is useful for integration testing?

RQ2: In what different ways the requirements at software integration level are traced to requirements at other levels and with other development artifacts?

The answers to RQ1 and RQ2 will lead to a case study in industry where the results from RQ1 and RQ2 will be mapped to state of practice, with possible improvement recommendations, leading to RQ3.

RQ3: Given a case, how do existing practices of requirements definition for integration testing compare to the current state-of-practice and what are the improvement suggestions (if any)?

For further discussions on the topic, contact Wasif Afzal at:


[1] E. Bjarnason, P. Runeson, M. Borg, M. Unterkalmsteiner, E. Engström, B. Regnell, G. Sabaliauskaite, A. Loconsole, T. Gorschek, R. Feldt. Challenges and practices in aligning requirements with verification and validation: A case study of six companies. Empirical Software Engineering, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 1809-1855, 2014.
[2] O. C. Z. Gotel and A. C. W. Finkelstein. "An analysis of the requirements traceability problem," Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Requirements Engineering, 1994.

[3] I. Sommerville and G. Kotonya. Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998.
Prel. end date: 2015-06-07
Student: Bahodir Karshibayev
IDT supervisor: Wasif Afzal,
Examinator: Daniel Sundmark
Daniel Sundmark, +46-21-103145

Rapport och bilagor


Senaste uppdatering

  • Mälardalen University |
  • Box 883 |
  • 721 23 Västerås/Eskilstuna |
  • 021-101300, 016-153600 |
  • webmaster |
  • Latest update: 2017.08.23