Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Effective Software Testing

Rojalin Behura

Abstract


Often all other activities before test execution are delayed. This means testing has to be done under severe pressure. It is out of question to quit the job, nor to delay delivery or to test badly. The real answer is a prioritization strategy in order to do the best possible job with limited resources. Which part of the systems requires most attention? There is no unique answer, and decisions about what to test have to be risk-based. There is a relationship between the resources used in testing and the risk after testing. There are possibilities for stepwise release. The general strategy is to test some important functions and features that hopefully can be released, while delaying others. First, one has to test what is most important in the application. This can be determined by looking at visibility of functions, at frequency of use and at the possible cost of failure. Second, one has to test where the probability of failure is high, i.e. one may find most trouble. This can be determined by identifying especially defect-prone areas in the product. Project history gives some indication, and product measures like complexity give more. Using both, one finds a list of areas to test more or less. After test execution has started and one has found some defects, these defects may be a basis for re-focusing testing. Defects clump together in defect-prone areas. Defects are a symptom of typical trouble the developers had. Thus, a defect leads to the conclusion that there are more defects nearby, and that there are more defects of the same kind. Thus, during the latter part of test execution, one should focus on areas where defects have been found, and one should generate more tests aimed at the type of defect detected before.

Keywords


About four key words or phrases in alphabetical order, separated by commas.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Joachim Karlsson & Kevin Ryan, “A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements”, IEEE Software, Sept. 1997

James Bach, “Good Enough Quality: Beyond the Buzzword”, IEEE Computer, Aug. 1997, pp. 96-98

Risk-Based Testing, STLabs Report, vol. 3 no. 5 (info@stlabs.com)

Ståle Amland, "Risk Based Testing of a Large Financial Application", Proceedings of the 14th International Conference and Exposition on TESTING Computer Software, June 16-19, 1997, Washington, D.C., USA.

Tagji M. Khoshgoftaar, Edward B. Allan, Robert Halstead, Gary P. Trio, Ronald M. Flass, “Using Process History to Predict Software Quality,” IEEE Computer, April 1998

Ytzhak Levendel, “Improving Quality with a Manufacturing Process”, IEEE Software, March 1991.

“When the pursuit of quality destroys value”, by John Favaro, Testing Techniques Newsletter, May-June 1996.

"Quality: How to Make It Pay,"Business Week, August 8, 1994

Barry W. Boehm, Software Engineering Economics, Prentice Hall, 1981

Magne Jørgensen, 1994, “Empirical studies of software maintenance”, Thesis for the Dr. Scient. degree, Research Report 188, University of Oslo.

T. M. Khoshgoftaar, E.B. Allan, R. Halstead, Gary P. Trio, R. M. Flass, «Using Process History to Predict Software Quality», IEEE Computer, April 1998

IEEE Standard 1044, A Standard Classification of Software Anomalies, IEEE Computer Society.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.