Se 381 -  lec 28 -- 34 - 12 jun12 - testing 1 of 2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


Se 381 - lec 28 -- 34 - 12 jun12 - testing 1 of 2



Software Engineering, Lectures

Software Engineering, Lectures



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 17 16 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Se 381 - lec 28 -- 34 - 12 jun12 - testing 1 of 2 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. SE-381 Software Engineering BEIT-V Lecture # 28 Testing (1 of 2)
  • 2. Testing Principles [Sch96] Ch – 5 • Purpose of Testing – To detect faults – as many as possible and as early as possible – Correction of faults at early stages is cheaper – To produce high quality Software • Testing as an Independent stage! • Testing Integrated to each phase of SDLC and Acceptance Testing of the final product
  • 3. Testing Intro (Contd.) • Verification & Validation – Verification refers to the process of determining whether a phase has been correctly carried out, and it takes place at the end of each phase – Validation is the intensive evaluation process that takes place just before the product is delivered to the client – to determine whether the product as a whole satisfies its Specifications » Conforms to IEEE Software Engineering Glossary, IEEE 610.12, 1990
  • 4. Verification & Validation • Barry Boehm 1984 – Verification: Are we building the Product Right? – Validation: Are we building the Right Product? – The former concentrates on the process and later on the product. – V & V and Testing are used alternatively by different texts, but Schach uses Testing with broader meanings encompassing Process as well as Product
  • 5. Types of Testing Non-Execution Based Testing – Applicable to earlier phases as well as Coding phase – Mostly comprised of Walkthroughs and Inspections of Documents, Design and Code Execution Based Testing – Corresponds to the phases when code is available – Applicable to Implementation, Integration and Maintenance phases
  • 6. Software Quality Assurance • In Engineering Disciplines – Quality is “Adherence to Specifications” • Accordingly, the Quality of Software is – the extent to which the product satisfies the Specifications – Its achievement needs ‘Effort’ and ‘Mechanism’ – SQA group should be amongst the ‘Strongest groups’ in the Software Development setup like Quality Control Department in Industry
  • 7. SQA Group • MUST ensure – Correct Product is produced – Product has been produced by following the right process. – At the end of each phase group should verify that the produced deliverables conform to the previous and next stage requirements – That Software Process and organizations capability to produce quality software is improving
  • 8. SQA Group (Contd) – Should comprise of skilled, technical, Senior members with expertise in varied areas of SD – Number of its members should be proportional to the scope and amount of SD undertaken by the setup – For small setups of <4 developers separate group will be an overhead, so the individuals should ensure SQA of parts developed / authored by others – Separate SQA Group costs but brings in more benefits (in terms of repute and more work) resulting from the delivery of High Quality Software
  • 9. SQA Group (Contd.) • Managerial Independence – The group should directly report to CE/CEO of the setup – Since it’ll have to make important, as well as seemingly ‘detrimental’ decisions eg “Buggy in-Time delivery” or “Bug-free (or less buggy) delayed delivery”, and resolve ‘Conflicts of Interest’ among different groups, so SQA Group should have Managerial Independence
  • 10. Non-Execution Based Testing – Mostly comprised of document(s), Design and Code reviews, and can be conducted through – Should be done by a Team consisting of members, most of whom were not involved in the respective phase development – Reviewing should be done independently by the team members, with intention to find ‘Max Faults’ – Can be carried out in two ways: • Walkthroughs • Inspections or Technical / Formal Reviews
  • 11. Inspections Versus Walkthroughs Inspections • More formal • Checklists guide the reviewers • 5-step Method • Takes longer then WT • More powerful and cost-effective tool Walkthroughs • Informal • 2-step method with – Preparations – Team Analysis of the document
  • 12. Walkthroughs • Walkthrough team should be of 4-6 members including • Representative from the developers involved in respective (to be reviewed) phase • Manager from the phase under review • Representative from the Next phase – who have to use this deliverable • Representative from SQA Group (Chair) • Representative from Client – Professionally experienced can find important faults – Senior members more effective
  • 13. Managing Walkthroughs • The documents/material should be circulated in advance • Each reviewer, after detailed study, should prepare two lists of: 1. Possible Faults 2. Items in-comprehensible (unclear) • Aim is to ‘detect and record’ the faults not to ‘correct’ them • Walkthrough meetings be called and chaired by SQA group member and should not last more than two hours
  • 14. Managing Walkthroughs . • The Phase (one under review) Representative guides the members to walkthrough the document, this can be either – Participant-Driven • The prepared lists (1 & 2) are presented • The Phase Rep should respond, justify or clarify each item • After reply, each item graded as ‘Fault’ or ‘Reviewers Mistake’ – Document-Driven • Phase Rep walks the participants through the document • Reviewers interrupt by picking up from their own prepared lists, or triggered by others response or presentation
  • 15. Managing Walkthroughs .. • Document Driven approach – Widely used, – Applicable to Specification, Design, Plan and Code Walkthroughs – Prompts more faults » IEEE Standards for Software Reviews IEEE 1028, 1988 • Performance at Walkthroughs should NOT be used as ‘Evaluation’ of Team Members • Walkthrough meetings should not turn into ‘Point-Scoring’ sessions – otherwise these will forfeit the aim of Fault finding
  • 16. Inspections (or Reviews w.r.t [Jal05]) • Proposed by Fagan 1976 for testing of Design and Code – A more formal approach – Comprised of 5 steps • Overview – of the document/material by Phase Rep, and after review it’ll be distributed among reviewers • Preparation – Reviewers list the faults, aided by provided Checklist, and remark their frequency, type etc • Inspection – One Reviewer walks through the material with reviewers ensuring every item is covered. All identified faults be compiled by the Inspection Team leader within the day • Rework – Phase Rep should resolve all the faults, problems and document their solutions
  • 17. Inspections or Reviews (Contd.) • Follow-up – The Team Leader to ensure that every single item raised is satisfactorily resolved either by fixing the document or clarifying the item. – If more than 5% of the material inspected is Reworked then team meets again for 100% re- inspection – Inspection Team should have at least 4 members – Moderator/Leader from SQAG, Phase Rep, Next Phase Rep, Clients Rep – Team members should take different roles of Reader, Recorder, Moderator etc
  • 18. CHECKLIST FOR HIGH LEVEL OR FUNCTION-ORIENTED DESIGN Sr. # Items Yes/No 1. Is each of the functional requirements taken into account? 2. Are there analyses to demonstrate that performance requirements can be met? 3. Are all assumptions explicitly stated, and are they acceptable? 4. Are there any limitations or constraints on the design beyond those in the requirements? 5. Are external specifications of each module completely specified? 6. Have exceptional conditions been handled? 7. Are all the data formats consistent with the requirements? 8. Are the operator and user interfaces properly addressed? 9. Is the design modular, and does it conform to local standards? 10. Are the sizes of data structures estimated? 11. Are provisions made to guard against overflow?
  • 19. CHECKLIST FOR DETAILED DESIGN Sr. # Items Yes/No 1. Does each of the modules in the system design exist in detailed design? 2. Are there analyses to demonstrate that the performance requirements can be met? 3. Are all the assumptions explicitly stated, and are they acceptable? 4. Are all relevant aspects of system design reflected in detailed design? 5. Have the exceptional conditions been handled? 6. Are all the data formats consistent with the system design? 7. Is the design structured, and does it conform to local standards? 8. Are the sizes of data structures estimated?
  • 20. 9. Are provisions made to guard against overflow? 10. Is each statement specified in natural language easily codable? 11. Are the loop termination conditions properly specified? 12. Are the conditions in the loops OK? 13. Are the conditions in the if statements correct? 14. Is the nesting proper? 15. Is the module logic too complex? 16. Are the modules highly cohesive? CHECKLIST FOR DETAILED DESIGN (Cont.) Sr. # Items Yes/No
  • 21. Inspections Benefits • Fault Statistics recorded add to historical data and can identify the gray areas in SD and weaknesses in organization • 70-80% of all faults can be detected using inspections before Module Testing is started • 40% less faults were detected in the final product when used Inspections rather than Walkthroughs » Fagan 1976 • Programmers productivity is increased and resources needed are reduced by 25% despite Inspection teams overhead
  • 22. Inspection Metrics • Metrics are to measure, monitor and ultimately to control a process, and here to show effectiveness of the Inspection process – Fault Density – is number of faults per page of Specifications, Design Document or per KLOC (1000 lines of Code) of Code inspected – Fault Severity – further categorization of faults into Major (which lead to program failure or crash) or Minor (which are not Major) faults per unit material (page or KLOC) – Fault Detection Efficiency – number of Major or Minor faults detected per person-hour – Fault Detection Rate – number of Major/Minor faults detected per hour
  • 23. Execution Based Testing • Testing is to demonstrate the presence of faults/bugs or errors • A Successful Test case is (like the ‘Test’ in Medical terminology) the one which locates or identifies a bug in the product “Program Testing can be very effective way to show the presence of bugs, but it is hopelessly inadequate for showing their absence” [Prof Dijkstra 1972]
  • 24. That is, if a product is executed with Test Data and the output is WRONG then the Product definitely contains a Fault, but if the output is CORRECT, then the product still may contain a fault. Faults are same as ‘bugs’ and can relate to any phase of SDLC Errors are usually programmer introduced faults Failure is an unacceptable effect or behavior, under permissible operating conditions that occur as a consequence of a fault.
  • 25. What Should be Tested? • Execution Based Testing is a process of inferring certain behavioral properties of a product based, in part, on the results of executing the product in a known environment with selected inputs [Goodenough 1979] – Three Key elements • Inferential Process • Known Environment(s) • Selected Input(s)
  • 26. Inferential Process • Testing is an Inferential Process – the product is run with known inputs expecting a desired output. • Tester has to infer, what if anything is wrong with the product. • Tester has Test Cases, Bug reports, Code and its .exe with him and has to identify the fault(s)
  • 27. Known Environment(s) • The Environment consists of Hardware, OSs, Compilers and all other programs with which the Product is to coexist and interact with or to execute in their presence • The Environment specifically refers to the state of these components when a fault occurred • The faults (usually assigned) to the Product may not be due to the Product but produced by any other component of the environment which is running at that time.
  • 28. – These may satisfy the Input specifications but may not produce the desired output – In Real-Time (RT) systems, the exact inputs may not be easy to feed to a specific Product, as it will be one of the components of the system, whose input will be the output of some other component and may involve different A-D/D-A conversions. – For RT systems’ testing Simulators are used and they provide the needed environment in which the system is to run and hence the Input data. Yet this will be a ‘simulated’ environment different than the one in which Product has to operate Selected Input(s)
  • 29. Testing - Behavioral Properties • Testing is to confirm that whether Product functions correctly with respect to its behavioral properties, which are – Utility – Reliability – Robustness – Performance and – Correctness [Goodenough 1979] That is for these Behavioral Properties we test the Product.
  • 30. Utility Utility is the extent to which Users’ needs are met when a correct Product is used under conditions written by its Specifications Here we test for • Ease of Use i.e. User friendliness • Functionality – whether Product performs what was desired • Cost-effectiveness – otherwise it will not be purchased, so it ought to be rightly/affordably priced
  • 31. Reliability Reliability is the measure of the frequency and criticality of Product failure We use different metrics to measure Reliability, these are: • Mean time between failures – how often the product fails • Failure Severity – how ‘hard’ the effects of that failure can be • Mean time to Repair – how long it takes on average to repair, more important is how long it takes to correct the results of the failure. Eg crash (or failure) of email browser might delete all the emails in ‘Inbox’ folder, or can damage the ‘Address Book’, or a Db front-end might wipe out the database on which it was operating. So the repair of Product will include the correction of allied problems and would surely take much longer.
  • 32. Robustness Robustness is the response from the Product for any input, this response needs to be reasonable and meaningful. It is essentially a function of number of factors; range of Operating conditions, unacceptable results for valid input and acceptability of results for invalid input. • A Robust Product should – NOT yield unacceptable results when the input satisfies its specifications – NOT crash when the Product is given invalid input – Respond/guide the user for invalid input, eg &$*? Characters used for string command, say while reading a filename
  • 33. Performance Performance is the extent to which Product meets its constraints with respect to response time or space requirements. Embedded systems, used in Industry, Avionics, PDA, Palmtop devices, Mobiles etc have their own storage, size, compute power constraints. Here we test Product according to the application domain • RT systems need to perform within a response time range, otherwise the produced results would be useless. • Size/display constraints may lead to smaller storage/memory sizes and minimal instruction sets, so the product need to be developed within those constraints • Critical information needs to be received and processed in RT.
  • 34. Correctness Correctness is the extent of conformance of the product to the specifications, independent of its use of computing resources, when operated under permitted conditions. [Goodenough 1979] • Simply, if product is provided all resources it needs, then for given valid input, it should provide the valid output i.e. according to output specifications
  • 35. Formal Mathematical Proofs • To prove that program is correct wrt its specification are expensive to develop, so used in Safety/Security and Life critical systems • They use the knowledge of formal semantics of the programming languages and construct theories that relate the program with its formal specs • These theories are proven mathematically, often using complex theorem-proving programs • They need specialist skills and have very high cost • The proven correct also needs to be tested and verified. {Sommerville, SE 6th Ed, 2000;p436)
  • 36. Fault Handling Techniques Testing Fault Handling Fault Avoidance Fault Tolerance Fault Detection Debugging Component Testing Integration Testing System Testing Verification Configuration Management Atomic Transactions Modular Redundancy Correctness Debugging Performance Debugging Reviews Design Methodology
  • 37. Reference for This Lecture • Pankaj Jalote, (2004 / 2005), An Integrated Approach to Software Engineering, 2nd / 3rd Edition; Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi – Chapter 5 / 10 – Testing pp: 403-471/409-471 • Stephen R Schach (1996); Classical and Object Oriented Software Engineering; 3rd Ed, Irwin-McGraw Hill, Boston, Ch-5 Testing Principles; pp:109-138 • Rajib Mall (2005); Fundamentals of Software Engineering, 2nd Ed, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi; Ch-10 Coding and Testing, pp:248- 279