More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Static techniques
Similar to Static techniques (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Static techniques
- 1. Static techniques By : Arif Rakhmatullah.m Program Studi (S1) Sistem Informasi Fakultas Sains dan Teknologi Universitas Islam Negeri sultan Syarif kasim Riau
- 2. Static techniques Static test techniques provide a powerful way to improve the quality and productivity of software development. This chapter describes static test techniques, including reviews, and provides an overview of how they are conducted. The fundamental objective of static testing is to improve the quality of software work products by assisting engineers to recognize and fix their own defects early in the software development process. While static testing techniques will not solve all the problems, they are enormously effective.
- 3. Cont.. Static techniques can improve both quality and productivity by impressive factors. Static testing is not magic and it should not be considered a replacement for dynamic testing, but all software organizations should consider using reviews in all major aspects of their work including requirements, design, implementation, testing, and maintenance. Static analysis tools implement automated checks, e.g. on code.
- 4. REVIEW PROCESS Reviews vary from very informal to formal (i.e. well structured and regulated). Although inspection is perhaps the most documented and formal review technique, it is certainly not the only one. The formality of a review process is related to factors such as the maturity of the development process, any legal or regulatory requirements or the need for an audit trail. In practice the informal review is perhaps the most common type of review. Informal reviews are applied at various times during the early stages in the life cycle of a document.
- 5. Phases of a formal review In contrast to informal reviews, formal reviews follow a formal process. A typical formal review process consists of six main steps:
- 6. Planning • Planning The review process for a particular review begins with a 'request for review' by the author to the moderator (or inspection leader). A moderator is often assigned to take care of the scheduling (dates, time, place and invitation) of the review. On a project level, the project planning needs to allow time for review and rework activities, thus providing engineers with time to thoroughly participate in reviews. For more formal reviews, e.g. inspections, the moderator always performs an entry check and defines at this stage formal exit criteria. The entry check is carried out to ensure that the reviewers' time is not wasted on a document that is not ready for review.
- 7. Cont… A document containing too many obvious mistakes is clearly not ready to enter a formal review process and it could even be very harmful to the review process. It would possibly de-motivate both reviewers and the author. Also, the review is most likely not effective because the numerous obvious and minor defects will conceal the major defects.
- 8. Kick-off • Kick-off An optional step in a review procedure is a kick-off meeting. The goal of this meeting is to get everybody on the same wavelength regarding the document under review and to commit to the time that will be spent on checking. Also the result of the entry check and defined exit criteria are discussed in case of a more formal review.
- 9. Cont.. In general a kick-off is highly recommended since there is a strong positive effect of a kick-off meeting on the motivation of reviewers and thus the effectiveness of the review process. At customer sites, we have measured results up to 70% more major defects found per page as a result of performing a kick-off, [van Veenendaal and van der Zwan, 2000].
- 10. Preparation • Preparation The participants work individually on the document under review using the related documents, procedures, rules and checklists provided. The individual participants identify defects, questions and comments, according to their understanding of the document and role. All issues are recorded, preferably using a logging form. Spelling mistakes are recorded on the document under review but not mentioned during the meeting.
- 11. Cont.. The annotated document will be given to the author at the end of the logging meeting. Using checklists during this phase can make reviews more effective and efficient, for example a specific checklist based on perspectives such as user, maintainer, tester or operations, or a checklist for typical coding problems.
- 12. Review meeting • Review meeting The meeting typically consists of the following elements (partly depending on the review type): logging phase, discussion phase and decision phase. During the logging phase the issues, e.g. defects, that have been identified during the preparation are mentioned page by page, reviewer by reviewer and are logged either by the author or by a scribe. A separate person to do the logging (a scribe) is especially useful for formal review types such as an inspection. To ensure progress and efficiency, no real discussion is allowed during the logging phase.
- 13. Cont.. If an issue needs discussion, the item is logged and then handled in the discussion phase. A detailed discussion on whether or not an issue is a defect is not very meaningful, as it is much more efficient to simply log it and proceed to the next one. Furthermore, in spite of the opinion of the team, a discussed and discarded defect may well turn out to be a real one during rework.
- 14. Rework • Rework Based on the defects detected, the author will improve the document under review step by step. Not every defect that is found leads to rework. It is the author's responsibility to judge if a defect has to be fixed. If nothing is done about an issue for a certain reason, it should be reported to at least indicate that the author has considered the issue.
- 15. Cont.. Changes that are made to the document should be easy to identify during follow-up. Therefore the author has to indicate where changes are made (e.g. using 'Track changes' in word-processing software).
- 16. Follow-up • Follow-up The moderator is responsible for ensuring that satisfactory actions have been taken on all (logged) defects, process improvement suggestions and change requests. Although the moderator checks to make sure that the author has taken action on all known defects, it is not necessary for the moderator to check all the corrections in detail. If it is decided that all participants will check the updated document, the moderator takes care of the distribution and collects the feedback. For more formal review types the moderator checks for compliance to the exit criteria.
- 17. Cont.. In order to control and optimize the review process, a number of measurements are collected by the moderator at each step of the process. Examples of such measurements include number of defects found, number of defects found per page, time spent checking per page, total review effort, etc. It is the responsibility of the moderator to ensure that the information is correct and stored for future analysis.
- 18. Reference Graham, d., et al. 2006. Foundation of Software Testing: ISTQB certification London, UK: International Thomson Business Press