static techniques
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•18 views
Dynamic testing involves executing software with input values and examining the output, allowing defects to be detected in code. Static testing analyzes software work products like documentation without executing the code. Formal reviews have defined phases including planning, preparation where reviewers check materials, a review meeting, and follow-up on rework. The main review types are walkthroughs where the author guides discussion, technical reviews where experts focus on technical content, and inspections with more formal defect identification. Critical success factors for implementing reviews include designating a champion, focusing on important items, explicit planning and tracking, training participants, managing people issues, and continuously improving.
Report
Share
Related slideshows
Recommended for you
Recommended for you
Recommended for you
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to static techniques
Similar to static techniques (19)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
static techniques
- 1. Program Studi S1 Sistem Informasi Fakultas Sains dan Teknologi Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau
- 2. The definition of testing outlines objectives that relate to evaluation, revealing defects and quality. As indicated in the definition two approaches can be used to achieve these objectives, static testing and dynamic testing. With dynamic testing methods, software is executed using a set of input values and its output is then examined and compared to what is expected. During static testing, software work products are examined manually, or with a set of tools, but not executed. As a consequence, dynamic testing can only be applied to software code. Dynamic execution is applied as a technique to detect defects and to determine quality attributes of the code.
- 4. 2 • The moderator (or review leader) leads the review process. He or she determines, in co operation with the author, the type of review, approach and the composition of the review team. The moderator performs the entry check and the follow-up on the rework, in order to control the quality of the input and output of the review process. • As the writer of the document under review, the author's basic goal should be to learn as much as possible with regard to improving the quality of the document, but also to improve his or her ability to write future documents.
- 5. • During the logging meeting, the scribe (or recorder) has to record each defect mentioned and any suggestions for process improvement. In practice it is often the author who plays this role, ensuring that the log is readable and understandable. • The task of the reviewers (also called checkers or inspectors) is to check any material for defects, mostly prior to the meeting. The level of thoroughness required depends on the type of review. • The manager is involved in the reviews as he or she decides on the execution of reviews, allocates time in project schedules and determines whether review process objectives have been met. The manager will also take care of any review training requested by the participants
- 7. A walkthrough is characterized by the author of the document under review guiding the participants through the document and his or her thought processes, to achieve a common understanding and to gather feedback. This is especially useful if people from outside the software discipline are present, who are not used to, or cannot easily understand software development documents. The content of the document is explained step by step by the author, to reach consensus on changes or to gather information.
- 8. A technical review is a discussion meeting that focuses on achieving consensus about the technical content of a document. Compared to inspections, technical reviews are less formal and there is little or no focus on defect identification on the basis of referenced documents, intended readership and rules. During technical reviews defects are found by experts, who focus on the content of the document. The experts that are needed for a technical review are, for example, architects, chief designers and key users. In practice, technical reviews vary from quite informal to very formal.
- 9. A technical review is a discussion meeting that focuses on achieving consensus about the technical content of a document. Compared to inspections, technical reviews are less formal and there is little or no focus on defect identification on the basis of referenced documents, intended readership and rules. During technical reviews defects are found by experts, who focus on the content of the document. The experts that are needed for a technical review are, for example, architects, chief designers and key users. In practice, technical reviews vary from quite informal to very formal.
- 10. 4 Implementing (formal) reviews is not easy as there is no one way to success and there are numerous ways to fail. The next list contains a number of critical success factors that improve the chances of success when implementing reviews. Find a 'champion' Pick things that really count Explicitly plan and track review activities Train participants
- 11. Manage people issues Follow the rules but keep it simple Continuously improve process and tools Report results
Editor's Notes
- NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image.