The document discusses quality assurance and testing in software development. It recommends establishing a quality assurance framework that incorporates source code management, continuous integration, code reviews, and continuous inspection tools like SonarQube. This helps automate the development process, reduce technical debt, and prevent bugs by finding and fixing issues early. Tracking key metrics also allows measuring the costs of quality problems versus prevention activities.

1. Professional – Multilingual – Service Oriented
Automate the Process
Deliver Quality

2. Agenda
 Presenter
 Quality & QA
 DEV Lifecycle
 Cost of quality
 Technical debt
 Issues
 Git, CI, Sonar, Se
 Bottom line
 Thanks

3. Ady Beleanu
• Quality inquisitor
• 10 years in field of QC & QA
• Managed projects & teams
• Coached & inspired testers
• https://www.linkedin.com/in/adybeleanu

4. Quality
Quality (ISO) = The totality of the characteristics of an entity
that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs
“= ability of product to be able to satisfy end users”
The concept of making products fit for a purpose.
Minimising defects and problems.
You - feel it!

5. Quality Perspectives
External
 Valuable for users
 Internal
 Right design
 Simple to understand
 Extendable
 Maintainable

6. Quality Focus – Final product
 Added value
 Attention to detail
 Process behind the product  Innovation & Pioneering
 Both – from point A to point B
 the difference - usability, safety, comfort, reliability, and so
on
vs.

7. Quality Assurance – The Pieces
For the system to work, each piece has to be:
 Perfect
 Easily integrated
 Tested
 Reusable
vs.

9. Key Success Criteria
THE BIBLE of the project
• Business case
• Architecture
• Requirements
• Quality strategy
• Project Synchronization
“Establishing your Automation Development Lifecycle”, Galen

10. Costs
• Lack of Quality Management
– Plan the quality
– Perform QA
– Perform QC
• Technical DEBT
• 1 External Failure Cost
• 2 Internal Failure Cost
• 3 Inspection (Appraisal) Cost
• 4 Prevention Cost

11. Costof Quality
$59.5 Billion Cost Software Errors in U.S. Economy / Year
estimated $22.2 billion,
could be prevented
 improved testing
infrastructure  eliminate
defects earlier / efficiently
*NIST
Assessment

12. Technical DEBTf Quality
http://otja.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/what-am-i-
thinking-about-visualising-your-technical-debt/
GOOD code vs. BAD code
or
Doing it
RIGHT & LONGER
/
QUICK & DIRTY

13. SDLC

14. Common Repository
http://otja.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/what-am-i-
thinking-about-visualising-your-technical-debt/
• Traceability
• Visibility
• Versioning
• Best practices
• Non-Latency
• Concurrency
CHAOS

15. Lack of integration
http://otja.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/what-am-i-thinking-about-visualising-your-technical-debt/
Issues
• Broken code check-in
• Uncertainty
• Missing code files
• Small mistakes – BIG issues
• Missing integration

16. The KEY to sustainable quality
REUSE of Resources
• Planning
• Analysis
• Design
• Development
• Testing
• Deployment
http://www.itcinfotech.com

17. A framework example

18. Repository
Source Code Management (SCM)
tool
Version Control System (VCS)

19. Continuous Integration
Automated builds
Static code analysis
Code coverage
reports
Trigger
Code aggregator
Central point for
quality

20. Problem no.1 – Code Quality
http://www.bonkersworld.net/code-reviews/
Poor unit test coverage Complexity for integration test
No full regression (100%) Tight couplings

21. Why code review?
Find bugs early / Fix cheap
Coding standards compliance
Sharing knowledge
Consistent design and
implementation
Higher software security
Team cohesion
Confidence of stakeholders

22. Code Quality Measurement Needed !!!
… but, WHATto measure?

24. Context – project done with & without code review:
 10k LOC,
 10eng,
 3month project
 Measured # of bugs found by QA Team in the next 6
months
The result: Code review would have saved half the cost of
fixing the bugs. Plus, they would have found 162 additional
bugs.
Code Review – Case Study

25. Code Review – Use Case

26. Code Review – Use Case

27. Code Review - trend & numbers
2012 study (VDC Research)
• 17.6% software engineers surveyed currently use automated tools for CR
• 23.7% expect to use them within 2 years.
Capers Jones' - 12,000 SW dev projects:
- 60-65% - The latent defect discovery rate of formal inspection.
- < 50% - For informal inspection.
- 30% - The latent defect discovery rate for most forms of testing.
150 lines of code per hour - Typical code review rates.
Code reviews => ~85% defect removal rate (avg. rate of about 65%)
75% of CR defects  evolvability rather than functionality
suitable for long product / system life cycles => increase of Technical DEBT.

28. Cost in SDLC

29. Code needs Continuous Inspection
code violations
code improvements
build stability

30. Continuous Inspection with SonarQube
7 Deadly Sins of source code
 Duplications
 Bad distribution of complexity
 Spaghetti Design
 Lack of unit tests
 No coding standards
 Potential bugs
 Not enough / too many comments

31. Integrate with SonarQube

32. SonarQube – look & feel

33. SonarQube – look & feel

34. SonarQube – look & feel

35. SonarQube – Technical DEBT Measurement

36. The so called Testing phase
Functional
/ UI
API / Services
Integration
Unit

37. Automated Test Tool
https://saucelabs.com/tutorials/php/se2/img/Diagram-Selenium.png

38. Reporting
~20 - 40%of project lifecycle time  REPORTING

39. Simplified…

40. Bottom Line
http://mycartoonthing.com/wp-content/uploads/image/business/Business%20bottom%20line%20cartoon.jpg

41. Bottom Line
Harvest
Foresee risks
Automate & Reuse
Organize process
Prevent
Build framework
Think & Understand