TISSEA: A Framework for Testing IoT Systems Based on Technical Software Engineering Aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet of Things (IoT) systems refer to interconnected systems of devices that collect, process, and exchange data. As IoT adoption continues to grow, ensuring effective testing is of paramount importance. However, testing IoT systems remains a challenge, particularly for software engineers, due to the need to test aspects beyond their primary area of expertise (e.g., security, sensor calibration, and connectivity). Testing aspects refer to any concept or concern that should be considered when testing a given system. While several frameworks for testing exist that focus on generic aspects of IoT systems, there is no dedicated framework for testing technical software engineering (SE) aspects of IoT systems. To address this gap, we propose and evaluateTISSEA, a framework to guide software engineers to test the technical software engineering (SE) aspects of IoT systems. We constructed TISSEA by identifying all possible technical software-engineering aspects from published taxonomies for IoT systems testing. Further, we mapped each aspect to the granularity of testing at each layer of the IoT system. We finally mapped each aspect with test orchestration strategies, test input artifacts, and execution strategies. We evaluated the TISSEA by surveying 22 professionals and conducting two case studies: (1) event logging and handling testing and (2) data integrity testing. The survey results show that professionals agreed with the proposed technical SE aspects for testing the device and application layers. However, the aspects proposed for testing the gateway and cloud layers still require further investigation. Results of the case studies indicate a gap between expected and captured log events. Regarding event handling, we found that some of the events reported by the system as successfully handled may include unhandled events that cannot be identified when relying on a single orchestration strategy. Regarding data integrity testing, we found that data can be altered at any node at any layer of the IoT system. However, accessing the original data allows the detection of modifications made to it at each node. Overall evaluation of TISSEA shows strong agreement with practitioners, and it could usefulness to test technical software engineering aspects of IoT systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".