Fail-Safe Testing of Web Applications

This dissertation introduces an approach to generate tests to test fail-safe behavior for web applications. We apply the approach to a commercial web application. We build models for both behavioral and mitigation requirements. We create mitigation tests from an existing functional black box test suite by determining failure type and points of failure in the test suite and weaving required mitigation based on weaving rules to generate a test suite that tests proper mitigation of failures. A genetic algorithm (GA) is used to determine points of failure and type of failure that needs to be tested. Mitigation test paths are woven into the behavioral test at the point of failure based on failure specific weaving rules. A simulator was developed to evaluate choice of parameters for the genetic algorithm. We showed how to tune the fitness function and performed tuning experiments for GA to determine what values to use for exploration weight and prospecting weight. We found that higher defect densities make prospecting and mining more successful, while lower mitigation defect densities need more exploration. We compare efficiency and effectiveness of the approach. First, the GA approach is compared to random selection. The results show that the GA performance was better than random selection and that the approach was robust when the search space increased. Second, we compare the GA against four coverage criteria. The results of comparison show that test requirements generated by a genetic algorithm (GA) are more efficient than three of the four coverage criteria for large search spaces. They are equally effective. For small search spaces, the genetic algorithm is less effective than three of the four coverage criteria. The fourth coverage criteria is too weak and unable to find all defects in almost all cases. We also present a large case study of a mortgage system at one of our industrial partners and show how we formalize the approach. We evaluate the use of a GA to create test requirements. The evaluation includes choice of initial population, multiplicity of runs and a discussion of the cost of evaluating fitness. Finally, we build a selective regression testing approach based on types of changes (add, delete, or modify) that could occur in the behavioral model, the fault model, the mitigation models, the weaving rules, and the state-event matrix. We provide a systematic method by showing the formalization steps for each type of change to the various models.

Double Reasonableness and the Fourth Amendment

Recently the Supreme Court has placed new limits on both the substance of the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary that serves as the principal remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. In this Article we briefly summarize these limitations and then argue that the curtailment of the exclusionary rule has the potential to ameliorate substantive Fourth Amendment doctrine. The limited reach of the modern exclusionary rule provides the Court with license to develop an expansive new substantive framework free of the specter of a correspondingly expansive remedial framework. One point on which nearly all jurists and commentators agree is that current Fourth Amendment doctrine is a mess. We argue that the Court’s exclusionary rule cases, while frustrating and ill-conceived if viewed in isolation, provide the Court with an opportunity to revisit problematic Fourth Amendment doctrine that was born under a very different remedial regime. Such an approach would allow the Court to adhere to its current view of the exclusionary rule as a remedy of last resort while creating a Fourth Amendment with teeth. The goal is a Fourth Amendment right that is more substantial and clearly defined, but a remedy that remains limited to egregious violations of clear substantive rules. The time is now to lift the Fourth Amendment fog.

Comment on Rule 14a-8(i)(9), Securities and Exchange Commission, June 30, 2015

The Securities and Exchange Commission has been analyzing its interpretation under Subsection (i)(9) of Rule 14a-8. This provision allows for the exclusion of shareholder proposals that conflict with those submitted by management. The staff has been examining its interpretation since instructed to do so by the chair of the SEC following a no action appeal in a case involving Whole Foods. A number of letters and memos submitted in connection with the review have analyzed the issue. At least one asserted that any change in interpretation required the Commission to go through the process of notice and comment. This letter asserts that notice and comment is not required, relying extensively on Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.