DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrating Exploratory Testing in Software Testing Life Cycle, a Controlled Experiment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrating Exploratory Testing in Software Testing Life Cycle, a Controlled Experiment Master Thesis Software Engineering September 2012 Integrating Exploratory Testing In Software Testing Life Cycle A Controlled Experiment Firstname Lastname Address: If applicable Tanveer Ahmed E-mail: If applicableChejerla a long-term e -Madhusudhanamail (not your student e- mail)Raju School of Computing Internet : www.bth.se/com School of Computing Blekinge Institute of Technology Phone : +46 455 38 50 00 Blekinge Institute of Technology SE-371 79 Karlskrona Fax : +46 455 38 50 57 SE-371 79 Karlskrona Sweden Sweden This thesis is submitted to the School of Engineering at Blekinge Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Software Engineering. The thesis is equivalent to 30 weeks of full time studies. Authors: Tanveer Ahmed Address: Karlskrona,Sweden Email: [email protected]. MadhuSudhanaRaju.Chejerla Address: Karlskrona,Sweden Email: [email protected] University advisor: Dr. Wasif Afzal School of Computing Blekinge Tekniksa Hogskola,Sweden 1 ABSTRACT Context. Software testing is one of the crucial phases in software development life cycle (SDLC). Among the different manual testing methods in software testing, Exploratory testing (ET) uses no predefined test cases to detect defects. Objectives. The main objective of this study is to test the effectiveness of ET in detecting defects at different software test levels. The objective is achieved by formulating hypotheses, which are later tested for acceptance or rejection. Methods. Methods used in this thesis are literature review and experiment. Literature review is conducted to get in-depth knowledge on the topic of ET and to collect data relevant to ET. Experiment was performed to test hypotheses specific to the three different testing levels : unit , integration and system. Results. The experimental results showed that using ET did not find all the seeded defects at the three levels of unit, integration and system testing. The results were analyzed using statistical tests and interpreted with the help of bar graphs. Conclusions. We conclude that more research is required in generalizing the benefits of ET at different test levels. Particularly, a qualitative study to highlight factors responsible for the success and failure of ET is desirable. Also we encourage a replication of this experiment with subjects having a sound technical and domain knowledge. Keywords: Exploratory testing, Experiment, Effectiveness, Software testing life cycle. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In the name of Allah most beneficent and most merciful All praise is due to Allah so we praise him and we seek his refuge and we bear witness that Muhammad saw is his messenger and devotee. At the outset, I am grateful to Almighty Allah who has bestowed me with his mercy and blessings to complete my thesis. We would like to thank our parents and my siblings for their unconditional love and support. We would like to thank Dr. Wasif Afzal whose support and help has been substantial in completing the master thesis. Finally we would like to thank our joint family, friends and fellow students for their moral and emotional support. - Tanveer Ahmed - Chejerla Madhusudhana Raju 3 Table of Contents INTEGRATING EXPLORATORY TESTING IN SOFTWARE TESTING LIFE CYCLE.........I A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT ......................................................................................................... I ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 3 1 PROLOGUE ........................................................................................................................... 8 1.1INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 MOTIVATION ........................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 RELATED WORK ...................................................................................................................... 9 1.4AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 10 1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION ............................................................................................................ 10 1.6 THESIS STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................... 11 1.7 ABBREVIATIONS/GLOSSARY .................................................................................................. 12 2. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 SOFTWARE TESTING ............................................................................................................... 13 2.2 LEVELS OF TESTING ............................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 V model of Testing ......................................................................................................... 15 2.3 EXPLORATORY TESTING ......................................................................................................... 17 2.3.1 Benefits of ET ................................................................................................................ 19 3. EXPERIMENT ......................................................................................................................... 20 3.1 EXPERIMENT DEFINITION ....................................................................................................... 20 3.1.1 Object of the study ......................................................................................................... 20 3.1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 20 3.1.3 Quality focus ................................................................................................................. 21 3.1.4 Context .......................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.5 Perspective .................................................................................................................... 21 3.2 EXPERIMENT PLANNING ......................................................................................................... 21 3.2.1 Context Selection ........................................................................................................... 21 3.2.2 Hypothesis formulation .................................................................................................. 21 3.2.4. Selection of subjects ...................................................................................................... 22 3.3 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ......................................................................................................... 22 3.3.1 Experiment design type .................................................................................................. 23 3.4 INSTRUMENTATION ................................................................................................................ 24 4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 26 4.1 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 26 4.2 NORMAL DISTRIBUTION ......................................................................................................... 28 4.3 UNIT LEVEL USING WILCOXON TEST ...................................................................................... 29 4.3.1 Hypothesis testing at Unit test level ................................................................................ 31 4.4 INTEGRATION LEVEL USING TWO SAMPLE T-TEST ................................................................ 32 4.4.1 Hypothesis testing at Integration level ............................................................................ 34 4.5 SYSTEM LEVEL USING WILCOXON TEST .................................................................................. 35 4.5.1 Hypothesis testing at System test level ............................................................................ 37 5. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 39 5.1 OBSERVATION ....................................................................................................................... 39 4 5.2 VALIDITY THREATS ............................................................................................................... 40 5.2.1Internal validity .............................................................................................................. 40 5.2.2External validity ............................................................................................................. 40 5.2.3Construct validity ........................................................................................................... 41 5.2.4Conclusion validity ........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Types of Software Testing
    Types of Software Testing We would be glad to have feedback from you. Drop us a line, whether it is a comment, a question, a work proposition or just a hello. You can use either the form below or the contact details on the rightt. Contact details [email protected] +91 811 386 5000 1 Software testing is the way of assessing a software product to distinguish contrasts between given information and expected result. Additionally, to evaluate the characteristic of a product. The testing process evaluates the quality of the software. You know what testing does. No need to explain further. But, are you aware of types of testing. It’s indeed a sea. But before we get to the types, let’s have a look at the standards that needs to be maintained. Standards of Testing The entire test should meet the user prerequisites. Exhaustive testing isn’t conceivable. As we require the ideal quantity of testing in view of the risk evaluation of the application. The entire test to be directed ought to be arranged before executing it. It follows 80/20 rule which expresses that 80% of defects originates from 20% of program parts. Start testing with little parts and extend it to broad components. Software testers know about the different sorts of Software Testing. In this article, we have incorporated majorly all types of software testing which testers, developers, and QA reams more often use in their everyday testing life. Let’s understand them!!! Black box Testing The black box testing is a category of strategy that disregards the interior component of the framework and spotlights on the output created against any input and performance of the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Smoke Testing What Is Smoke Testing?
    Smoke Testing What is Smoke Testing? Smoke testing is the initial testing process exercised to check whether the software under test is ready/stable for further testing. The term ‘Smoke Testing’ is came from the hardware testing, in the hardware testing initial pass is done to check if it did not catch the fire or smoked in the initial switch on.Prior to start Smoke testing few test cases need to created once to use for smoke testing. These test cases are executed prior to start actual testing to checkcritical functionalities of the program is working fine. This set of test cases written such a way that all functionality is verified but not in deep. The objective is not to perform exhaustive testing, the tester need check the navigation’s & adding simple things, tester needs to ask simple questions “Can tester able to access software application?”, “Does user navigates from one window to other?”, “Check that the GUI is responsive” etc. Here are graphical representation of Smoke testing & Sanity testing in software testing: Smoke Sanity Testing Diagram The test cases can be executed manually or automated; this depends upon the project requirements. In this types of testing mainly focus on the important functionality of application, tester do not care about detailed testing of each software component, this can be cover in the further testing of application. The Smoke testing is typically executed by testers after every build is received for checking the build is in testable condition. This type of testing is applicable in the Integration Testing, System Testing and Acceptance Testing levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Parasoft Static Application Security Testing (SAST) for .Net - C/C++ - Java Platform
    Parasoft Static Application Security Testing (SAST) for .Net - C/C++ - Java Platform Parasoft® dotTEST™ /Jtest (for Java) / C/C++test is an integrated Development Testing solution for automating a broad range of testing best practices proven to improve development team productivity and software quality. dotTEST / Java Test / C/C++ Test also seamlessly integrates with Parasoft SOAtest as an option, which enables end-to-end functional and load testing for complex distributed applications and transactions. Capabilities Overview STATIC ANALYSIS ● Broad support for languages and standards: Security | C/C++ | Java | .NET | FDA | Safety-critical ● Static analysis tool industry leader since 1994 ● Simple out-of-the-box integration into your SDLC ● Prevent and expose defects via multiple analysis techniques ● Find and fix issues rapidly, with minimal disruption ● Integrated with Parasoft's suite of development testing capabilities, including unit testing, code coverage analysis, and code review CODE COVERAGE ANALYSIS ● Track coverage during unit test execution and the data merge with coverage captured during functional and manual testing in Parasoft Development Testing Platform to measure true test coverage. ● Integrate with coverage data with static analysis violations, unit testing results, and other testing practices in Parasoft Development Testing Platform for a complete view of the risk associated with your application ● Achieve test traceability to understand the impact of change, focus testing activities based on risk, and meet compliance
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Bolton in NZ Pinheads, from the Testtoolbox, Kiwi Test Teams & More!
    NZTester The Quarterly Magazine for the New Zealand Software Testing Community and Supporters ISSUE 4 JUL - SEP 2013 FREE In this issue: Interview with Bryce Day of Catch Testing at ikeGPS Five Behaviours of a Highly Effective Time Lord Tester On the Road Again Hiring Testers Michael Bolton in NZ Pinheads, From the TestToolbox, Kiwi Test Teams & more! NZTester Magazine Editor: Geoff Horne [email protected] [email protected] ph. 021 634 900 P O Box 48-018 Blockhouse Bay Auckland 0600 New Zealand www.nztester.co.nz Advertising Enquiries: [email protected] Disclaimer: Articles and advertisements contained in NZTester Magazine are published in good faith and although provided by people who are experts in their fields, NZTester make no guarantees or representations of any kind concerning the accuracy or suitability of the information contained within or the suitability of products and services advertised for any and all specific applications and uses. All such information is provided “as is” and with specific disclaimer of any warranties of merchantability, fitness for purpose, title and/or non-infringement. The opinions and writings of all authors and contributors to NZTester are merely an expression of the author’s own thoughts, knowledge or information that they have gathered for publication. NZTester does not endorse such authors, necessarily agree with opinions and views expressed nor represents that writings are accurate or suitable for any purpose whatsoever. As a reader of this magazine you disclaim and hold NZTester, its employees and agents and Geoff Horne, its owner, editor and publisher, harmless of all content contained in this magazine as to its warranty of merchantability, fitness for purpose, title and/or non-infringement.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Testing: Essential Phase of SDLC and a Comparative Study Of
    International Journal of System and Software Engineering Volume 5 Issue 2, December 2017 ISSN.: 2321-6107 Software Testing: Essential Phase of SDLC and a Comparative Study of Software Testing Techniques Sushma Malik Assistant Professor, Institute of Innovation in Technology and Management, Janak Puri, New Delhi, India. Email: [email protected] Abstract: Software Development Life-Cycle (SDLC) follows In the software development process, the problem (Software) the different activities that are used in the development of a can be dividing in the following activities [3]: software product. SDLC is also called the software process ∑ Understanding the problem and it is the lifeline of any Software Development Model. ∑ Decide a plan for the solution Software Processes decide the survival of a particular software development model in the market as well as in ∑ Coding for the designed solution software organization and Software testing is a process of ∑ Testing the definite program finding software bugs while executing a program so that we get the zero defect software. The main objective of software These activities may be very complex for large systems. So, testing is to evaluating the competence and usability of a each of the activity has to be broken into smaller sub-activities software. Software testing is an important part of the SDLC or steps. These steps are then handled effectively to produce a because through software testing getting the quality of the software project or system. The basic steps involved in software software. Lots of advancements have been done through project development are: various verification techniques, but still we need software to 1) Requirement Analysis and Specification: The goal of be fully tested before handed to the customer.
    [Show full text]
  • Experience and Exploring in Software Testing
    Ohjelmistotestauksen Teemapäivä, TTY, 8.6.2010 How Do Testers Do It? Exploratory and Experience Based Testing Juha Itkonen Software Business and Engineering Institute (SoberIT) [email protected] +358 50 5771688 Contents • Introduction to experience based and exploratory testing – Intelligent manual testing • Overall strategies and detailed techniques • Selection of exploratory tester’s pitfalls Juha Itkonen - SoberIT 2010 2 Manual Testing • Testing that is performed by human testers Research has shown: 1. Individual differences in • Stereotype of manual testing testing are high 2. Test case design – Executing detailed pre-designed test cases techniques alone do not – Mechanical step-by-step following the explain the results instructions – Treated as work that anybody can do In practice, it’s clear that some testers are better than others in manual testing and more effective at revealing defects... Juha Itkonen - SoberIT 2010 3 My viewpoint: Experience Based – Intelligent – Manual Testing • Manual testing that builds on the tester’s experience – knowledge and skills • Some aspects of testing rely on tester’s skills – during testing – e.g., input values, expected results, or interactions • Testers are assumed to know what they are doing – Testing does not mean executing detailed scripts • Focus on the actual testing work in practice – What happens during testing activities? – How are defects actually found? – Experience-based and exploratory aspects of software testing Juha Itkonen - SoberIT 2010 4 Exploratory Testing is creative testing without predefined test cases Based on knowledge and skills of the tester 1. Tests are not defined in advance – Exploring with a general mission – without specific step-by-step instructions on how to accomplish the mission 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Testing TDDC90 – Software Security
    Security Testing TDDC90 – Software Security Ulf Kargén Department of Computer and Information Science (IDA) Division for Database and Information Techniques (ADIT) Security testing vs “regular” testing ▪ “Regular” testing aims to ensure that the program meets customer requirements in terms of features and functionality. ▪ Tests “normal” use cases Test with regards to common expected usage patterns. ▪ Security testing aims to ensure that program fulfills security requirements. ▪ Often non-functional. ▪ More interested in misuse cases Attackers taking advantage of “weird” corner cases. 2 Functional vs non-functional security requirements ▪ Functional requirements – What shall the software do? ▪ Non-functional requirements – How should it be done? ▪ Regular functional requirement example (Webmail system): It should be possible to use HTML formatting in e-mails ▪ Functional security requirement example: The system should check upon user registration that passwords are at least 8 characters long ▪ Non-functional security requirement example: All user input must be sanitized before being used in database queries How would you write a unit test for this? 3 Common security testing approaches Often difficult to craft e.g. unit tests from non-functional requirements Two common approaches: ▪ Test for known vulnerability types ▪ Attempt directed or random search of program state space to uncover the “weird corner cases” In today’s lecture: ▪ Penetration testing (briefly) ▪ Fuzz testing or “fuzzing” ▪ Concolic testing 4 Penetration testing ▪ Manually try to “break” software ▪ Relies on human intuition and experience. ▪ Typically involves looking for known common problems. ▪ Can uncover problems that are impossible or difficult to find using automated methods ▪ …but results completely dependent on skill of tester! 5 Fuzz testing Idea: Send semi-valid input to a program and observe its behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Systems Project Management
    SUBJECT INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOPIC: SESSION 10: CASE STUDY My Hands-On Experience Software Testing CASE STUDY:My Hands-On Experience Software Testing SESSION 10 CASE STUDY My Hands-On Experience Software Testing Well-versed with formal and exploratory software testing approaches in traditional and iterative software development models. Formal and exploratory testing of web applications, local desktop applications, SDK packages Used various software test design techniques which are traditionally called as black-box/white-box, static/dynamic testing techniques Known in the testing industry for challenging some well established thoughts from the renowned experts like Schools of Testing, Testing vs Checking, Formal vs Exploratory testing etc. Developed an improved parser-friendly text session report format for exploratory testing using Session based test management. Developed Python code to parse all session reports periodically to generate consolidated PDF reports for the team. Introduced Test Doubles concept to system testing to increase test coverage Employed All-pairs technique to API testing and event capturing testing Worked on Database migration testing from hierarchial (IMSDB) to RDBMS ( DB2 ). Was chosen by management to take up training for the complete development team on testing of the integrated system. White box testing using code coverage tools Security Testing His experiments with Python and fuzzing made him the first to present on the subject of fuzzing at any software testing conference, voted as the Best Innovative Paper Award by audience. He moved on to present extended tutorials on the subject with demonstrations of exploits using Python. Conducted web security testing for multiple clients and reported critical security bugs not found by automated scanners.
    [Show full text]
  • Is White Box Testing Manual Or Automated
    Is White Box Testing Manual Or Automated Sometimes disillusioned Sid hopple her imprinters east, but continent Ajai atomises discommodiously or franchised invariably. How grasping is Georgie when spondylitic and unimpregnated Guy pistol-whip some lameness? Peccant Seth demit unintentionally while Wildon always bolshevises his blackcurrants yokes uneasily, he presages so raucously. The above preparations and black box testing process from regular security is manual testing or a resource for the customer requirements, regardless of the What Are Benefits of Smoke Testing? Conducted for automated or major is beneficial to. Responsible for creating test cases in quality grade in such arrogant way almost all best business requirements cover. Term strategic choice of internal structure and other related to check the black box testing based on manual is testing or white box. Software testing can mine continuously for white testing is that bottle neck open. There is manual or minor refactoring to manually in automating the. There are became different types of testing. Automated testing, as opposed to manual testing, allows time and resources to be freed up dump the testing process, stream that testing can be performed at higher speed, with higher accuracy and carefully lower costs. This advocate is ugly by Facebook to deliver advertisement when customer are on Facebook or a digital platform powered by Facebook advertising after visiting this website. Test cases are hear with and intended requirements and specifications of the application in mind. You please guide with manual or twice, manual and white box method that are other software development life cycle in white box. User acceptance form of possible to examine if necessary part of software continue to go through a newly added or wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • Model-Based Security Testing
    Model-Based Security Testing Ina Schieferdecker Juergen Grossmann Fraunhofer FOKUS Fraunhofer FOKUS Berlin, Germany Berlin, Germany Freie Universitaet Berlin [email protected] Berlin, Germany [email protected] Martin Schneider Fraunhofer FOKUS Berlin, Germany [email protected] Security testing aims at validating software system requirements related to security properties like confidentiality, integrity, authentication, authorization, availability, and non-repudiation. Although security testing techniques are available for many years, there has been little approaches that allow for specification of test cases at a higher level of abstraction, for enabling guidance on test identification and specification as well as for automated test generation. Model-based security testing (MBST) is a relatively new field and especially dedicated to the sys- tematic and efficient specification and documentation of security test objectives, security test cases and test suites, as well as to their automated or semi-automated generation. In particular, the com- bination of security modelling and test generation approaches is still a challenge in research and of high interest for industrial applications. MBST includes e.g. security functional testing, model-based fuzzing, risk- and threat-oriented testing, and the usage of security test patterns. This paper provides a survey on MBST techniques and the related models as well as samples of new methods and tools that are under development in the European ITEA2-project DIAMONDS. 1 Introduction The times of rather static communication in strictly controlled, closed networks for limited purposes are over, while the adoption of the Internet and other communication technologies in almost all domes- tic, economic and social sectors with new approaches for rather dynamic and open networked environ- ments overwhelmingly progresses.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on Minimum Standards for Developer Verification of Software
    Guidelines on Minimum Standards for Developer Verification of Software Paul E. Black Barbara Guttman Vadim Okun Software and Systems Division Information Technology Laboratory July 2021 Abstract Executive Order (EO) 14028, Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity, 12 May 2021, di- rects the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to recommend minimum standards for software testing within 60 days. This document describes eleven recommen- dations for software verification techniques as well as providing supplemental information about the techniques and references for further information. It recommends the following techniques: • Threat modeling to look for design-level security issues • Automated testing for consistency and to minimize human effort • Static code scanning to look for top bugs • Heuristic tools to look for possible hardcoded secrets • Use of built-in checks and protections • “Black box” test cases • Code-based structural test cases • Historical test cases • Fuzzing • Web app scanners, if applicable • Address included code (libraries, packages, services) The document does not address the totality of software verification, but instead recom- mends techniques that are broadly applicable and form the minimum standards. The document was developed by NIST in consultation with the National Security Agency. Additionally, we received input from numerous outside organizations through papers sub- mitted to a NIST workshop on the Executive Order held in early June, 2021 and discussion at the workshop as well as follow up with several of the submitters. Keywords software assurance; verification; testing; static analysis; fuzzing; code review; software security. Disclaimer Any mention of commercial products or reference to commercial organizations is for infor- mation only; it does not imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that the products mentioned are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Waters Software Development Life Cycle (EMPOWER PRODUCTS)
    Waters Software Development Life Cycle (EMPOWER PRODUCTS) Project Start Document Feature Study Complete Project Market Definition Req. Design Docs. Review Test P Plan Code r Func. Dev. Design Design o Review j Spec. Plan Docs. e Test c Cases Task t Comp. Review Implementation Feature Freeze M Func. i l Freeze Internal e s Acc. Evaluation t Tests o Functional n Freeze e Full s Test Full suite Evaluation Code Freeze Regr. Final Tests Evaluation & (Verify) Verify Final Freeze Field Personnel Project End Users Phases What is Waters Testing Strategy for Empower? Waters Corporation testing process is documented in a number of policies, procedures, and work instructions. The following is a summary. A test plan is generated as part of the SDLC process. The software test strategy encompasses both manual and automated testing which is detailed in the test plan. Testing covers both new functionality as well as manual and automated regression testing. Automated regression testing focuses on complex functionality in areas deemed critical (e.g. Instrument Control, Data Acquisition and Processing, etc.). Manual regression testing focuses on Conversion Testing, Recovery Testing, Performance Testing, Interface Testing, Security Testing, System Testing and testing of System Messages, etc. Manual testing is performed utilizing a combination of Unit, Integration and System level tests. Unit tests focus on an individual aspect of a software feature with the intention of verifying the functionality of each sub-component while integration and system tests focus on the performance of the software in user scenarios. Each required element defined in the Functional Specification shall have a minimum of one corresponding Unit test case.
    [Show full text]