Static techniques

Static techniques
Siti Rubayati : 11453201587
Jurusan Sistem Informasi
Fakultas Sains dan Teknologi
Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim
Riau

REVIEW SAND THE
TEST PROCESS With dynamic testing methods, software is executed using a set of input
values and its output is thenexamined and compared to what is expected.
During static testing, software work products are examinedmanually, or
with a set of tools, but not executed. As a consequence, dynamic testing
can only be appliedto software code. Dynamic execution is applied as a
technique to detectdefects and to determine quality attributes of the code.
This testing option isnot applicable for the majority of the software work
products. Among the questions that arise are: How can we evaluate or
analyze a requirements document,a design document, a test plan, or a
user manual? How can we effectively pre-examine the source code
before execution? One powerful technique that can beused is static
testing, e.g. reviews. In principle all software work products can betested
using review techniques.
The definition of testing outlines objectives that relate to evaluation, revealing
defects and quality. Asindicated in the definition two approaches can be used to
achieve these objectives, static testinganddynamic testing.
2

Studies have shown that as a result of reviews,
a significant increase in productivity and
product quality can be achieved [Gilb and
Graham, 1993], [vanVeenendaal, 1999].
Reducing the number of defects early in the
product lifecycle also means that less time has
to be spent on testing and maintenance.
The Power of PowerPoint | thepopp.com
In addition to finding defects, the objectives of reviews are
often alsoinformational, communicational and educational,
whereby participantslearn about the content of software
work products to help them understandthe role of their own
work and to plan for future stages of development.Reviews
often represent project milestones, and support the
establishmentof a baseline for a software product. The type
and quantity of defects foundduring reviews can also help
testers focus their testing and select effectiveclasses of
tests. In some cases customers/users attend the review
meetingand provide feedback to the development team, so
reviews are also a meansof customer/user communication.
3

Tosummarize, the use of static testing, e.g. reviews, on software work products hasvarious advantages:
Start early
Since static testing can start early in the life
cycle, early feedback on qualityissues can be
established, e.g. an early validation of user
requirements andnot just late in the life cycle
during acceptance testing.
Rework
By detecting defects at an early stage, rework
costs are most often relativelylow and thus a
relatively cheap improvement of the quality
of software products can be achieved
Productivity
Since rework effort is
substantially reduced,
development productivity
figures are likely to increase.
Exchange of information
The evaluation by a team has the
additional advantage that there is an
exchange of information between the
participants
Awareness
Static tests contribute to an
increased awareness of
quality issues.
The Power of PowerPoint | thepopp.com 4

REVIEW PROCESS
Reviews vary from very informal to formal (i.e. well structured and
regulated).Although inspection is perhaps the most documented and
formal review technique, it is certainly not the only one. The formality
of a review process isrelated to factors such as the maturity of the
development process, any legal orregulatory requirements or the need
for an audit trail. In practice the informalreview is perhaps the most
common type of review. Informal reviews areapplied at various times
during the early stages in the life cycle of a document.A two-person
team can conduct an informal review, as the author can ask a
colleague to review a document or code. In later stages these reviews
often involvemore people and a meeting. This normally involves peers
of the author, who tryto find defects in the document under review and
discuss these defects in areview meeting. The goal is to help the
author and to improve the quality of thedocument. Informal reviews
come in various shapes and forms, but all have onecharacteristic in
common – they are not documented.

Phases of a formal review
Planning
Kick-off
Preparation
Review meeting
Rework
Follow-up.
In contrast to informal reviews, formal reviews follow a formal process. Atypical formal review process
consists of six main steps:

Planning
Although more and other
entry criteriacan be
applied, the following
can beregarded as the
minimum set for
performing the entry
check:
1 A short check of a product sample by the moderator (or expert) does notreveal a
large number of major defects. For example, after 30 minutes ofchecking, no more
than 3 major defects are found on a single page or fewerthan 10 major defects in
total in a set of 5 pages.
2 The document to be reviewed is
available with line numbers.
3 The document has been cleaned up by running
any automated checksthat apply.
4 References needed for the inspection are stable and available.
The document author is prepared to join the review
team and feels confidentwith the quality of the
document. 7
5
•The document author is prepared to join the review team and feels confidentwith the quality of the document.

Within reviews the following focuses
can be identified:
# focus on higher-level documents, e.g. does
the design comply to therequirements;
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 or
maintainability.
8

Kick-off
1 image and description
An optional step in a review procedure is a kick-off meeting. The goal of thismeeting is to get everybody on the
same wavelength regarding the documentunder review and to commit to the time that will be spent on checking. Also
theresult of the entry check and defined exit criteria are discussed in case of a moreformal review. In general a kick-
off is highly recommended since there is astrong positive effect of a kick-off meeting on the motivation of reviewers
andthus the effectiveness of the review process. At customer sites, we have measured results up to 70% more major
defects found per page as a result of performing a kick-off, [van Veenendaal and van der Zwan, 2000]
During the kick-off meeting the reviewers receive a short introduction on theobjectives of the review and the
documents. The relationships between the document under review and the other documents (sources) are explained,
especially if the number of related documents is high.
Role assignments, checking rate, the pages to be checked, process changesand possible other questions are also
discussed during this meeting. Of coursethe distribution of the document under review, source documents and
otherrelated documentation, can also be done during the kick-off.

Preparation
The participants work individually on the document under review using therelated documents, procedures, rules
and checklists provided. The individualparticipants identify defects, questions and comments, according to
theirunderstanding of the document and role. All issues are recorded, preferablyusing a logging form. Spelling
mistakes are recorded on the document underreview but not mentioned during the meeting. The annotated
document will begiven to the author at the end of the logging meeting. Using checklists duringthis phase can
make reviews more effective and efficient, for example a specificchecklist based on perspectives such as user,
maintainer, tester or operations,or a checklist for typical coding problems.
A critical success factor for a thorough preparation is the number of pageschecked per hour. This is called the
checking rate. The optimum checkingrate is the result of a mix of factors, including the type of document, its
complexity, the number of related documents and the experience of the reviewer.Usually the checking rate is in
the range of five to ten pages per hour, butmay be much less for formal inspection, e.g. one page per hour.
Duringpreparation, participants should not exceed this criterion. By collecting dataand measuring the review
process, company-specific criteria for checkingrate and document size (see planning phase) can be set,
preferably specificto a document type.

Review meeting
The meeting typically consists of the following elements (partly depending onthe review type): logging
phase, discussion phase and decision phase.
During the logging phase the issues, e.g. defects, that have been identifiedduring the preparation are
mentioned page by page, reviewer by reviewer andare logged either by the author or by a scribe. A
separate person to do thelogging (a scribe) is especially useful for formal review types such as an
inspection. To ensure progress and efficiency, no real discussion is allowed during thelogging phase. If
an issue needs discussion, the item is logged and then handledin the discussion phase. A detailed
discussion on whether or not an issue is adefect is not very meaningful, as it is much more efficient to
simply log it andproceed to the next one. Furthermore, in spite of the opinion of the team, a discussed
and discarded defect may well turn out to be a real one during rework

Major defects could cause a downstream effect
(e.g. a fault in a design canresult in an
error in the implementation).
Every defect and its severity should be logged. The participant who identifiesthe defect proposes the
severity. Severity classes could be:
Minor defects are not likely to cause
downstream damage (e.g. non-
compliance with the standards and
templates).
Critical defects will cause downstream damage;
the scope and impact of thedefect is
beyond the document under inspection

Rework
Based on the defects detected, the author will improve
the document underreview step by step. Not every
defect that is found leads to rework. It is theauthor's
responsibility to judge if a defect has to be fixed. If
nothing is doneabout an issue for a certain reason, it
should be reported to at least indicate thatthe author
has considered the issue.
13
Changes that are made to the document should be
easy to identify duringfollow-up. Therefore the author
has to indicate where changes are made (e.g.using
'Track changes' in word-processing software).

Follow-up
In order to control and optimize the review process, a number of
measurements are collected by the moderator at each step of the
process. Examples ofsuch measurements include number of
defects found, number of defects foundper page, time spent
checking per page, total review effort, etc. It is the responsibility of
the moderator to ensure that the information is correct and stored
forfuture analysis.
The moderator is responsible for ensuring that satisfactory
actions have beentaken on all (logged) defects, process
improvement suggestions and changerequests. Although the
moderator checks to make sure that the author hastaken
action on all known defects, it is not necessary for the
moderator to checkall the corrections in detail. If it is decided
that all participants will check theupdated document, the
moderator takes care of the distribution and collectsthe
feedback. For more formal review types the moderator
checks for compliance to the exit criteria.
14

Sumber : Graham et.al (2011)
Thank you
http://sif.uin-suska.ac.id
http://fst.uin-suska.ac.id
http://uin-suska.ac.id
15

Static techniques

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Static techniques (20)

More from Siti Rubayati (13)

Recently uploaded (20)

Static techniques