Static Techniques (Chapter 3)
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes190 views
The document discusses static testing techniques, emphasizing their role in improving software quality and productivity during development. It highlights the advantages of early feedback, reduced rework costs, and collaborative review processes, contrasting informal and formal review methods. Key phases of a formal review process are outlined, including planning, review meetings, and follow-up actions to ensure document quality and defect resolution.
![REVIEWS AND THE TEST
PROCESS
Studies have shown that as a result of reviews, a significant increase in productivity and
product quality can be achieved [Gilb and Graham, 1993], [van Veenendaal, 1999]. Reducing the
number of defects early in the product life cycle also means that less time has to be spent on testing
and maintenance. To summarize, the use of static testing, e.g. reviews, on software work products has
various advantages:
– Since static testing can start early in the life cycle, early feedback on quality issues can be established, e.g. an
early validation of user requirements and not just late in the life cycle during acceptance testing.
– By detecting defects at an early stage, rework costs are most often relatively low and thus a relatively cheap
improvement of the quality of software products can be achieved.
– Since rework effort is substantially reduced, development productivity figures are likely to increase.
– The evaluation by a team has the additional advantage that there is an exchange of information between the
participants.
– Static tests contribute to an increased awareness of quality issues.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3-171127063602/85/Static-Techniques-Chapter-3-3-320.jpg)
![• Kick off
An optional step in a review procedure is a kick-off meeting.
The goal of this meeting is to get everybody on the same wavelength
regarding the document under review and to commit to the time that
will be spent on checking. Also the result of the entry check and defined
exit criteria are discussed in case of a more formal review. In general a
kick-off is highly recommended since there is a strong positive effect of
a kick-off meeting on the motivation of reviewers and thus 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]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3-171127063602/85/Static-Techniques-Chapter-3-9-320.jpg)
Static Techniques (Chapter 3)
- 1. Static Techniques Febriana Aulia Hidayati 11453204106 Faculty of Sains and Technology Majoring in Information System Islamic university Sultan syarif khasim riau 2017
- 2. Static test techniques provide a powerful way to improve the quality and productivity of software development. Static techniques can improve both quality and productivity by impressive factors. Static testing is not magic and it should not be considered a replacement for dynamic testing, but all software organizations should consider using reviews in all major aspects of their work including requirements, design, implementation, testing, and maintenance. Static analysis tools implement automated checks, e.g. on code.
- 3. REVIEWS AND THE TEST PROCESS Studies have shown that as a result of reviews, a significant increase in productivity and product quality can be achieved [Gilb and Graham, 1993], [van Veenendaal, 1999]. Reducing the number of defects early in the product life cycle also means that less time has to be spent on testing and maintenance. To summarize, the use of static testing, e.g. reviews, on software work products has various advantages: – Since static testing can start early in the life cycle, early feedback on quality issues can be established, e.g. an early validation of user requirements and not just late in the life cycle during acceptance testing. – By detecting defects at an early stage, rework costs are most often relatively low and thus a relatively cheap improvement of the quality of software products can be achieved. – Since rework effort is substantially reduced, development productivity figures are likely to increase. – The evaluation by a team has the additional advantage that there is an exchange of information between the participants. – Static tests contribute to an increased awareness of quality issues.
- 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 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 the informal review is perhaps the most common type of review. Informal reviews are applied 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 involve more people and a meeting. This normally involves peers of the author, who try to find defects in the document under review and discuss these defects in a review meeting. The goal is to help the author and to improve the quality of the document. Informal reviews come in various shapes and forms, but all have one characteristic in common – they are not documented.
- 5. a. Phases of a formal review In contrast to informal reviews, formal reviews follow a formal process. A typical formal review process consists of six main steps: – Planning – Kick-off – Preparation – Review meeting – Rework – Follow-up.
- 6. • Planning Although more and other entry criteria can be applied, the following can be regarded as the minimum set for performing the entry check: – A short check of a product sample by the moderator (or expert) does not reveal a large number of major defects. For example, after 30 minutes of checking, no more than 3 major defects are found on 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.
- 7. Within reviews the following focuses can be identified: – 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 soft ware functions; – focus on usage, e.g. for testability or maintainability.
- 8. The author may raise additional specific roles and questions that have to be addressed. The moderator has the option to also fulfill a role, alongside the task of being a review leader. Checking the document improves the moderator's ability to lead the meeting, because it ensures better understanding. Furthermore, it improves the review efficiency because the moderator replaces an engineer that would otherwise have to check the document and attend the meeting. It is recommended that the moderator take the role of checking compliance to standards, since this tends to be a highly objective role, which leads to less discussion of the defects found.
- 9. • Kick off An optional step in a review procedure is a kick-off meeting. The goal of this meeting is to get everybody on the same wavelength regarding the document under review and to commit to the time that will be spent on checking. Also the result of the entry check and defined exit criteria are discussed in case of a more formal review. In general a kick-off is highly recommended since there is a strong positive effect of a kick-off meeting on the motivation of reviewers and thus 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]
- 10. Preparation A critical success factor for a thorough preparation is the number of pages checked per hour. This is called the checking rate. The optimum checking rate 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, but may be much less for formal inspection, e.g. one page per hour. During preparation, participants should not exceed this criterion. By collecting data and measuring the review process, company-specific criteria for checking rate and document size (see planning phase) can be set, preferably specific to a document type.
- 11. • Review meeting Every defect and its severity should be logged. The participant who identifies the defect proposes the severity. Severity classes could be: – Critical: defects will cause downstream damage; the scope and impact of the defect is beyond the document under inspection. – Major, defects could cause a downstream effect (e.g. a fault in a design can result in an error in the implementation). – Minor, defects are not likely to cause downstream damage (e.g. non-compli ance with the standards and templates). , At the end of the meeting, a decision on the document under review has to be made by the participants, sometimes based on formal exit criteria. The most important exit criterion is the average number of critical and/or major defects found per page (e.g. no more than three critical/major defects per page). If the number of defects found per page exceeds a certain level, the document must be reviewed again, after it has been reworked. If the document complies with the exit criteria, the document will be checked during follow-up by the moderator or one or more participants. Subsequently, the document can leave the review process. If a project is under pressure, the moderator will sometimes be forced to skip re-reviews and exit with a defect- prone document. Setting, and agreeing, quantified exit level criteria helps the moderator to make firm decisions at all times.
- 12. • Rework Based on the defects detected, the author will improve the document under review step by step. Not every defect that is found leads to rework. It is the author's responsibility to judge if a defect has to be fixed. If nothing is done about an issue for a certain reason, it should be reported to at least indicate that the author has considered the issue. Changes that are made to the document should be easy to identify during follow-up. Therefore the author has to indicate where changes are made (e.g. using 'Track changes' in word- processing software).
- 13. 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 make sure that 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 takes care of the distribution and collects the feedback. For more formal review types the moderator checks for compliance to the exit criteria.
- 14. Referensi Graham, d., et al. 2006. Foundation of Software Testing: ISTQB certification London, UK: International Thomson Business Press http://www.uin-suska.ac.id/ http://sif.uin-suska.ac.id/ http://fst.uin- suska.ac.id