SOFTWARE TESTING

Instructor: Mehwish
 OUTLINE
• Static Testing
• Static Test Structured Group Evaluations
– Foundations
– The General Process
– Roles and Types of Reviews
 Static Techniques
• Static testing should be carried out early in the
project lifecycle to identify the existence of design
flaws and to ensure adherence to standards.
• An analysis of the defects found by employing static
testing techniques also helps to identify root causes
of common, occurring defects.
– This helps to improve the overall SDLC.
• Static testing can be implemented early in the SDLC
when the code is not logically completed.
• However, it should also be implemented throughout
the life cycle for better results.
• Static techniques should be used before dynamic
techniques.
• Static techniques are used to examine the output or
other project artifacts without executing it.
• Static techniques can be executed manually or
through an automated tool.
• Static testing helps in identifying the causes of these
defects such as
• deviations from standards,
• requirement defects,
• design defects,
• insufficient maintainability, and
• incorrect interface specifications.
• For example
– when buying a bicycle, people would first want to
physically inspect it for scratches.
– They would also want to ensure that the parts fit
properly.
• These examples are similar to static testing techniques;
they involve visually inspecting the object without
executing or using it.
Static Test Structured Group
Evaluations
 Foundations
• Reviews apply the human analytical capabilities to
check and evaluate complex issues.
• Intensive reading and trying to understand the
examined documents is the key.
• There are different techniques for checking
documents.
• They differ regarding the intensity, formality,
necessary resources (staff and time), and goals.
 Review
• The first static testing technique, which is a review.
• “A process or meeting during which a work product,
or a set of work products, is presented to project
personnel, managers, users, customers, or other
interested parties for comment or approval.”(IEEE)
• Reviews are a way of testing software work products
and are performed before dynamic testing execution.
 Benefits of Review
• The different benefits of the review process are the
following:
– When defects are detected at an early stage, rework
expenses are relatively low, and this reduces the overall
cost of software products.
– As the rework effort is substantially reduced, development
productivity is likely to increase.
– It also helps in reducing the development timescale,
testing time, and associated costs.
– This contributes to the overall project or product lifetime
cost reduction. Furthermore, a review is often conducted
by a team.
– This evaluation by a team has the additional advantage of
allowing for the exchange of information between the
participants.
– Reviews also contribute to an increased awareness of
quality issues.
– Reviews are a suitable method for improving the quality of
software work products.
– While the product or deliverable under review, benefits
directly from the review process, reviews are also critical
as they help improve the overall quality of the SDLC.
The General Process
 The General Process
• Formal reviews follow a detailed process.
• A formal review process consists of six main steps.
– Planning
– Kick-off
– Preparation
– Review meeting
– Rework
– Follow-up
 1.Planning
• The review process begins with a request for review
made by the Author
– who defines a clear objective for the review to the
Moderator or inspection leader.
• A Moderator is often assigned
• to take care of scheduling details such as the date, time, place, and
invitation of the review.
• For more formal reviews, such as inspections, the Moderator
always performs an entry check and defines formal exit criteria
during this stage.
• The entry check is carried out to ensure the Reviewers time is not
wasted on a document that is not ready for review.
• The Moderator and Author decide on the section of
the document to review.
– The maximum size of the section reviewed is usually
between 10 and 20 pages as too much information can be
difficult to properly review.
• In a formal inspection, only one or two pages may be
examined to find serious defects that are not obvious
and which require more careful scrutiny to ascertain.
• The review team normally consists of four to six
participants including a Moderator and an Author.
– To improve the effectiveness of the review, different roles
are assigned to each participant.
• These roles help the Reviewers focus on specific
types of defects during the analysis.
– This reduces the chance of multiple identifications of the
same defect.
• The Moderator assigns the roles to the Reviewers.
 2. Kick-Off
• An optional step in a review procedure is a kick-off
meeting.
• The goal of this meeting is to create
– a cohesive understanding of the situation among all
participants regarding the document under review and to
commit to the mentioned timeline.
• In general, a kick-off is highly recommended since
there is a robust and positive effect on the
motivation of Reviewers and thus on the
effectiveness of the review process.
• During the kick-off meeting, the Reviewers receive a
short introduction to the objectives of the review
and the documents.
• The relationships between the document under
review and the other document sources are
explained, especially if the number of related
documents is high.
• Role assignments, checking rate, the pages to
be checked, process changes, and other
possible questions are also discussed during
this meeting.
• The distribution of the document under
review, source documents, and other related
documentation is also performed during the
kick-off.
 3. Preparation
• The participants prepare individually for the review
using the related documents, procedures, rules, and
checklists provided.
• This ensures Reviewers have studied the document
before participating in the review.
• Sometimes, this step can be handled by sharing the
artifact under review with Reviewers before the
meeting.
• The participants can identify
– defects and formulate questions and comments
according to their understanding of the document
and their roles in the review process.
 4. Review Meeting
• The meeting, partly dependent upon the review
type, consists of the following elements:
• logging phase, discussion phase, and decision phase.
• During the logging phase, the issues
– such as defects identified during the preparation–are
mentioned page by page and reviewed by the reviewer,
and they are logged either by the author or by a scribe.
• Every defect and its severity should be logged.
• The participant who identifies a particular defect can
make recommendations on the defect and its
handling.
• In the discussion phase, all marked issues are
discussed. The final decision phase is when the
decision is made.
– Various types of reviews differ in their approach to the
process of conducting the review meeting.
– Some reviews follow a roundabout pattern to record all
issues before they are discussed.
– Other reviews are more open and discuss any specific
issue as it is recorded.
– Such discussions must be moderated well to ensure that
too much time is not spent on discussing only one issue.
 5. Rework
• Based on recommendations from the review
meeting, the Author of the document or the
reviewed product must fix the defect and update the
defect status accordingly.
• Not every defect found leads to rework. It is the
Author's responsibility to judge if a defect
necessitates fixing.
• If an issue is not fixed, it should still be
reported to indicate that the Author has
considered the issue.
• Changes made to the document should be
easy to identify during follow-up.
– To facilitate this, the Author must indicate where
changes are made.
– This can be done by using items such as “Track
Changes” in word-processing software.
 6. 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 ensure 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
manages the distribution and collection of the
feedback.
• The Moderator gathers required metrics and
evaluates if the exit criteria are met to close
the action items.
Roles and Types of Reviews
 Roles and Types of Reviews
• The different roles and their responsibilities in a
formal review are the following:
• Manager
• The Manager can be considered the sponsor of the review
process.
• The Manager is involved in deciding which reviews to execute,
allocating time in project schedules, and determining whether
review objectives have been met.
• The Manager will also fulfill any review training requested by the
participants.
• Depending on their background, Managers can also be involved in
the review process by playing the role of a Reviewer if required.
• Moderator
• The Moderator, or Review Leader, leads the review process.
• The Moderator, along with the Author, determines the type of
review to be conducted, the approach to be taken in regards to
the review, and the composition of the review team.
• The Moderator performs the entry check and the follow-up on the
rework to control the quality of the input and output of the review
process.
• The Moderator also schedules the meeting, distributes documents
before the meeting, coaches other team members, paces the
meeting, leads possible discussions, and stores the data collected.
• Author
– The Author is the writer of the software product under
review.
– The Author's goal is to learn as much as possible about
improving the quality of the artifact under review.
– Another goal is also to improve the ability to create future
artifacts.
– The Authors' task during the review is to clarify their
doubts and to understand the defects found.
• Reviewers
– Reviewers, Checkers, or Inspectors assess a material for
defects. They typically do so before the meeting.
– The level of thoroughness, domain knowledge, or technical
expertise required depends on the type of review being
conducted.
– Reviewers should be chosen to represent different
perspectives and roles in the review process.
– When the artifact is under review, Reviewers receive
materials such as source documents, standards, and
checklists.
– If the fewer source and reference documents are provided,
more domain expertise about reviewing content is
needed.
• Recorders
– Recorders are people who record each defect mentioned,
and they record suggestions made for process
improvement during a review meeting on a logging form.
– Recorders, sometimes referred to as ‘Scribe’ must ensure
the logging form is readable and understandable.
THE END
Thanks