The document discusses static and dynamic testing methods. Static testing involves analyzing code or documentation without executing the software, while dynamic testing executes the software. Both methods find different types of defects. Key aspects of static testing include review processes, which can be informal or formal. Formal reviews involve several phases: planning, kick-off, preparation, review meeting, rework, and follow-up. The review meeting itself includes logging defects, discussing them, and deciding on next steps. Roles in the review include moderator, author, scribe, and reviewers. Different review types are described.

1. Damian Gordon

2.  Static Testing is the testing of a component or
system at a specification or implementation
level without execution of the software.
 Dynamic Testing is the testing of software by
executing the software of either a component
or system.
 Static Testing and Dynamic Testing are
complementary methods and tend to find
different types of defects effectively and
efficiently.

3.  Static Testing detects defects such as
deviations from standards, missing
requirements, design defects, non-
maintainable code and inconsistent
interface specifications.
 Dynamic Testing detects defects such as
checking if outputs from the expected
values.

4.  One key approach in Static Testing is the
Review Process.
 Reviews can find defects, are informational,
communicational, and educational.
 Participants in the review learn the content
of the software systems, the role of their
own work, help planning for future stages of
the work.
 Reviews often represent milestones, and
support the establishments of a baseline for
the software product.

6.  The type and quantity of defects found
during the review stage can help focus the
testing process.
 In some cases customers or users attend the
review process and provide feedback to the
developers and document authors.
 Studies have shown the reviews significantly
increase productivity and product quality.

7.  They can be either informal or formal.
 The formality of the review process is
related to factors such as the maturity of the
development process, any legal or
regulatory requirements or the need for an
audit trail.
 In practice most reviews are informal.
 A two-person team can conduct an informal
review, as the developer/author can get a
colleague to review the code and
documentation.

8.  Phases of a Formal Review
1. Planning
2. Kick-Off
3. Preparation
4. Review Meeting
5. Rework
6. Follow-up

9.  1. Planning
 The authors/developers request a review.
 A moderator is assigned – this is the leader
of the review process.
 The project planning needs to incorporate
time to undertake the review.
 The planning must start with deciding an
entry criteria to ensure that document is
ready for review.

10.  1. Planning
 Entry Criteria
 The set of generic and specific conditions
for permitting a process to go forward with
a defined task, e.g. Test phase. The purpose
of entry criteria is to prevent a task from
starting which would entail more (wasted)
effort compared to the effort needed to
remove the failed entry criteria.

11.  1. Planning
 Minimum set of criteria for performing entry
check:
◦ A short check of a product sample by the moderator
does not reveal a large number of defects, e.g. After
30 minutes of checking, no more than 3 major defects
are found in a single page or fewer than 10 major
defects in total in a set of 5 pages.
◦ The document to be reviewed is available with line
numbers.
◦ The document has been cleaned up by running any
automated checks that apply.
◦ References needed for the inspection are stable and
available.
◦ The document author is prepared to join the review
team and feels confident with the quality of the
document.

12.  1. Planning
 The review will focus on a few different
things:
◦ Focus on higher-level documents, e.g. Does the
design comply to the requirements
◦ Focus on standards, e.g. Internal consistency,
clarity, naming conventions, templates
◦ Focus on related documents at the same level,
e.g. Interfaces between software functions
◦ Focus on usage, e.g. For testability and
maintainablity

13.  2. Kick-Off
 The review starts with a kick-off meeting, to
make sure everyone is on the same
wavelength regarding the document under
review.
 The meeting consists of a short introduction
to the objectives of the review and the
documents.
 Role assignments, checking rate, the pages
to be checked, process changes and
possible other questions are discussed at
this meeting.

14.  3. Preparation
 Participants identify defects, questions, and
comments, according to their understanding
of the document and their role.
 A checking rate is decided, which is the
number of pages checked per hour, usually
about 5 to 10 pages per hour, depending on
complexity.

15.  4. Review Meeting
 Usually made up of the following phases:
◦ Logging phase
◦ Discussion phase
◦ Decision phase

16.  4. Review Meeting
 Logging Phase:
 The issues that have been identified in the
Preparation stage are logged.
 To ensure progress and efficiency, no real
discussion is allowed during the logging
phase.
 Each defect is logged with a severity:
◦ Critical: defects will cause downstream damage.
◦ Major: defects could cause downstream damage.
◦ Minor: defects are not likely to cause downstream
damage.

17.  4. Review Meeting
 Discussion Phase:
 Each of the defects that require discussion
are discussed, with a chairman preventing
discussions from getting too personal.

18.  4. Review Meeting
 Decision Phase:
 At the end of the discussion phase, a
decision is taken about the document under
review. If the number of defects found per
page exceeds a certain level, the document
may need to be reworked, and reviewed
again.

19.  5. Rework
 Based on the defects detects, the author will
improve the document under review, step-
by-step.

21.  Always, every, all, none, never, … (absolutely
sure?)
 Certainly, therefore, clearly, obviously,
customarily, most, … (persuasion lingo)
 Some, sometimes, often, usually, ordinarily,
customarily, most, … (vague)
 etc., and so forth, and so on, such as, … (not
testable)
 Good, fast, cheap, efficient, small, stable, …
(unquantifiable)
 Handled, processed, rejected, skipped,
eliminated…
 If … then … (missing else)

22.  Roles and Responsibilities
 The moderator
 The author
 The scribe
 The reviewers
 The manager

23.  Roles and Responsibilities
 The moderator serves as the review leader,
they determine the type of review, approach
and the composition of the review team.
 The moderator performs the entry check,
and the follow-up on the rework.
 The moderator also schedules meetings,
disseminates documents, leads discussions
and stores relevant data.

24.  Roles and Responsibilities
 The author writes the original document and
seeks to improve the quality of the
document by working with others.

25.  Roles and Responsibilities
 The scribe records all of the defects during
the logging meetings.

26.  Roles and Responsibilities
 The reviewers (also called checkers and
inspectors) check the documents for
defects.
 Reviewers are chosen to represent different
perspectives in the review.

27.  Roles and Responsibilities
 The manager decides on the execution of
reviews and determines whether review
process objectives have been met.

28.  Types of Reviews
 Walkthrough
 Technical Review
 Inspection

29.  Types of Reviews
 Walkthrough
 The author guides the review team through
the document, to achieve a common
understanding and gather feedback.
 This means the author does a range of
preparation, and the review team don’t need
to do a detailed study before the meeting.
 A walkthrough is especially useful for
higher-level documents, like requirements
specifications and architectural documents.

30.  Types of Reviews
 Technical Review
 This approach focuses on developing a
consensus about the technical content of
the document.
 Defects are found by technical experts, who
focus on the content of the document (as
opposed to considering any relevant
legislation and standards, referenced
documents, and intended readership).

31.  Types of Reviews
 Inspection
 This approach is the most formal review type.
 The document is inspected thoroughly be the
reviews before the meeting, comparing the
work product with its sources and other
referenced documents, and using rules and
checklists.
 The defects found are logged and any
discussion is postponed until the discussion
phase.
 This makes the inspection meeting a very
efficient meeting.

32.  Let’s do one.