Testing 1 static techniques
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•67 views
Static techniques such as reviews can improve both quality and productivity in software development. Static testing examines software work products like requirements and design documents manually or with tools before execution, finding defects early. Dynamic testing executes software with test cases. The two techniques are complementary, as static testing finds defects like missing requirements or design flaws while dynamic testing finds failures from execution. Using static testing from early in the development lifecycle provides advantages like early feedback, low rework costs, increased productivity, and greater awareness of quality issues.
Report
Share
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Testing 1 static techniques
Similar to Testing 1 static techniques (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Testing 1 static techniques
- 1. Static techniques Nama : MINI MARSIAH Nim : 11453201774 Jurusan : SISTEM INFORMASI Fakultas : SAINS DAN TEKNOLOGI UNIVERSITAS ISLAM NEGERI SULTAN SYARIF KASIM RIAU
- 2. 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. 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.
- 3. 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. Dynamic testing and static testing are complementary methods, as they tend to find different types of defects effectively and efficiently. Types of defects that are easier to find during static testing are: deviations from standards, missing requirements, design defects, non-maintainable code and inconsistent interface specifications. Note that in contrast to dynamic testing, static testing finds defects rather than failures.
- 4. Achieved [Gilb and Graham, 1993], [van Veenendaal, 1999]. Reducing the number of defects early in the product life cycle also means that less time has to be spent on testing and maintenance. To summarize, the use of static testing, e.g. reviews, on software work products has various advantages: Since static testing can start early in the life cycle, early feedback on quality issues can be established, e.g. an early validation of user requirements and not just late in the life cycle during acceptance testing. By detecting defects at an early stage, rework costs are most often relatively low and thus a relatively cheap improvement of the quality of software products can be achieved. Since rework effort is substantially reduced, development productivity figures are likely to increase. The evaluation by a team has the additional advantage that there is an exchange of information between the participants. Static tests contribute to an increased awareness of quality issues.
- 5. In contrast to informal reviews, formal reviews follow a formal process. A typical formal review process consists of six main steps: Planning Kick-off Preparation Review meeting Rework Follow-up. Phases of a formal review
- 6. 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. Although more and other entry criteria can be applied, the following can be regarded as the minimum set for performing the entry check: 1. A short check of a product sample by the moderator (or expert) does not reveal a large number of major defects. For example, after 30 minutes of checking, no more than 3 major defects are found on a single page or fewer than 10 major defects in total in a set of 5 pages. 2. The document to be reviewed is available with line numbers. 3. The document has been cleaned up by running any automated checks that apply. 4. References needed for the inspection are stable and available. 5. The document author is prepared to join the review team and feels confident with the quality of the document. Planning
- 7. 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. 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] Kick-off
- 8. 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. 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. Preparation
- 9. The meeting typically consists of the following elements (partly depending on the review type): logging phase, discussion phase and decision phase. Every defect and its severity should be logged. The participant who identifies the defect proposes the severity. Severity classes could be: 1. Critical: defects will cause downstream damage; the scope and impact of the defect is beyond the document under inspection 2. Major, defects could cause a downstream effect (e.g. a fault in a design can result in an error in the implementation). 3. Minor, defects are not likely to cause downstream damage (e.g. non-compli ance with the standards and templates). , Review meeting
- 10. 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. 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). Rework
- 11. 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. Follow-up