SOFTWARE TESTING AND ANALYSIS MAURO PEZZE PDF DOWNLOAD

adminComment(0)

PDF | On Jan 1, , Mauro Pezzè and others published Software Testing and Analysis: Process, Principles, and Techniques. Software Testing and Analysis: Process, Principles, and Techniques. Book · January Download full-text PDF. By incorporating software testing and analysis techniques into Mauro Pezzè This book was typeset by the authors using pdf LATEX and printed and bound by A typical download takes one hour, and an interrupted download must be. Mauro Pezze'. Michal Young. Mauro Pezze'. Software Testing and Analysis: Process, Principles, and Techniques Mauro Pezz`e and Chapter 14 Structural Testing The structure of the software itself is a valuable source of Download pdf.


Software Testing And Analysis Mauro Pezze Pdf Download

Author:LIBERTY PIOMBINO
Language:English, German, Japanese
Country:Luxembourg
Genre:Business & Career
Pages:253
Published (Last):13.03.2016
ISBN:664-8-20793-250-9
ePub File Size:24.83 MB
PDF File Size:19.51 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
Downloads:28089
Uploaded by: TASHA

Software Testing and Analysis: Process, Principles and Techniques Author: Mauro Pezze | Michal Young. 93 downloads Views 9MB Size Report. Software Testing and Analysis: Process, Principles, and Techniques. Mauro Pezzè Chapter Integration & Component-based Software Testing [ppt | pdf ] . Software Testing and Analysis: Process, Principles and Techniques by Mauro Pezze, Michal Young Software Testing and Analysis: Process, Pronunciation Pairs Student's Book with Audio CD - Dinotrux: To the Rescue! download» June | English | ISBN | Pages | PDF | MB[ b].

Oberg, J. Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Report on the loss of the mars polar lander and deep space 2 missions. Weyuker, E. Agrawal, V. Binder, R. Liu, C. Beizer, B.

Ramachandran, M.

Generation of Integration Tests for Self-Testing Components

Leon, D. In that Draft version produced 31st March Commonly available testing tools can measure coverage of entry and exit points. The search function in Figure It was called at only point, from one other C function in the same unit.

Coverage of calls requires exercis- ing each statement in which the parser and scanner access the symbol table, but this would almost certainly be satisfied by a set of test cases exercising each production in the grammar accepted by the parser.

When procedures maintain internal state local variables that persist from call to call , or when they modify global state, then properties of interfaces may only be revealed by sequences of several calls. In object-oriented pro- gramming, local state is manipulated by procedures called methods, and sys- tematic testing necessarily concerns sequences of method calls on the same object.

While these complications may arise even in conventional procedural programs e. Not surprisingly, then, approaches to systematically exercising sequences of pro- cedure calls are beginning to emerge mainly in the field of object-oriented testing, and we therefore cover them in Chapter This is primarily exception handling.

The relations among these criteria are illustrated in Figure The search function was analogous in this case to a private internal method of a class.

Michael Ernst's publications

The hierarchy can be roughly divided into a part that relates requirements for covering program paths, and another part that relates requirements for covering combinations of conditions in branch decisions. The two parts come together at branch coverage. Above branch coverage, path-oriented criteria and condition-oriented criteria are generally separate, because there is con- siderable cost and little apparent benefit in combining them.

Statement cov- erage is at the bottom of the subsumes hierarchy for systematic coverage of control flow. Applying any of the structural coverage criteria, therefore, im- plies at least executing all the program statements.

This is true even for the statement coverage criterion, weak as it is.

Unreachable statements can occur as a result of defensive programming e. Stronger coverage criteria tend to require coverage of more infeasible ele- ments.

For example, in discussing multiple condition coverage, we implicitly assumed that basic conditions were independent and could therefore occur in any combination. In reality, basic conditions may be comparisons or other relational expressions and may be interdependent in ways that make certain combinations infeasible.

Fortunately, short- circuit evaluation rules ensure that the combination hFalse; Falsei is not re- quired for multiple condition coverage of this particular expression in a C or Java program. In the trivial case where these if statements occur together, the problem is both easy to understand and to avoid by placing the second if within an else clause , but essentially the same interdependence can occur when the decisions are separated by other code.

The other main option is requiring justification of each element left un- covered. Explaining why each element is uncovered has the salutory effect of distinguishing between defensive coding and sloppy coding or maintenance, and may also motivate simpler coding styles. However, it is more expensive because it requires manual inspection and understanding of each element left uncovered and is unlikely to be cost-effective for criteria that impose test obligations for large numbers of infeasible paths.

This problem, even more than the large number of test cases that may be required, leads us to conclude that stringent path-oriented coverage criteria are seldom useful.

Structural coverage criteria are not incremental in this sense. Even a small change has an unpredictable effect on coverage. If a set of test cases has achieved a certain level of coverage before the change, it is impossible to determine what level of coverage the same test set will produce after the program change. This implies that measurement of structural coverage in quickly evolving software cannot be used in the same way it might for a stable unit. For example, during development of a unit, structural coverage might be used to identify untested elements, but measures of satisfaction of cover- age would be of little value.

When the unit is delivered to an independent test group, structural coverage could be more profitably used as an indicator of the thoroughness of testing by the developers, or as a termination condition. Open Research Issues Devising and comparing structural criteria was a hot topic in the 80s.

It is no longer an active research area for imperative programming, but new pro- gramming paradigms or design techniques present new challanges. Poly- morphism, dynamic binding, object oriented and distributed code open new problems and require new techniques, as discussed in other chapters. Appli- cability of structural criteria to architectural design descriptions is still under investigation. Usefulness of structural criteria for implicit control flow has been addressed only recently.

Early testing research, including research on structural coverage criteria, was concerned largely with improving the fault-detection effectiveness of test- ing. Today, the most pressing issues are cost and schedule. Better auto- mated techniques for identifying infeasible paths will be necessary before Draft version produced 31st March Alternatively, for many applications it may be more appropriate to gather evidence of feasibility from actual product use; this is called residual test coverage monitoring and is a topic of current re- search.

The incrementality problem described above is particularly impor- tant in the context of rapid cycles of product development and change, and will surely be a topic of further testing research for the next several years. In particular we expect further research in inferring coverage during regression testing. It is a classic despite its age, which is evident from the limited set of techniques addressed and the programming language used in the examples. The excellent survey by Adrion et al.

Frankl and Weyuker [FW93] provide a modern treatment of the subsumption hierarchy among structural coverage criteria. Woodward et al. Cyclomatic testing is described by Mc- Cabe [McC83]. Related Topics Readers with a strong interest in coverage criteria should continue with the next chapter, which presents data flow testing criteria. Others may wish to proceed to chapters that describe application of structural testing in the par- ticular problem domains.

Chapter 16 describes testing programs with com- plex data structures, and Chapter 17 discusses testing object-oriented pro- grams. Readers wishing a more comprehensive view of unit testing should continue with Chapters 20 on test data generation and 21 on design of test scaffolding. Tool support for structural testing discussed in Chapter The process context of structural testing is described in Chapter Richards Adrion, Martha A.

Branstad, and John C. Validation, verification, and testing of computer software. Frankl and Elain G. Provable improvements on branch testing. Methodology for the generation of program test data. Structured Testing. The Art of Software Testing. John Wiley and Sons, Woodward, D. Hedley, and M. Experience with path analysis and testing of programs.

TSE, It is difficult to steer fine-grained control flow decisions of a unit when it is one small part of a larger system, and the cost of achieving fine- grained coverage for a system or major component is seldom justifiable. Usu- ally it is more appropriate to choose a coverage granularity commensurate with the granularity of testing.

Moreover, if unit testing has been effective, then faults that remain to be found in integration testing will be primarily interface faults, and testing effort should focus on interfaces between units rather than their internal details. In some programming languages FORTRAN, for example , a single pro- cedure may have multiple entry points, and one would want to test invoca- tion through each of the entry points.

More common are procedures with multiple exit points. For example, the code of Figure Each of these ing would have been exercised already if even the simplest statement coverage criterion were satisfied during unit testing, but perhaps only in the context of a simple test driver; testing in the real context could reveal interface faults that were previously undetected.

Software Testing and Analysis: Process, Principles and Techniques. Mauro Pezze, Michal Young

Exercising all the entry points of a procedure is not the same as exercising all the calls. For example, procedure A may call procedure C from two distinct points, and procedure B may also call procedure C.

You might also like: TINTIN AND ALPH ART COMIC PDF

In this case, coverage of calls of C means exercising all three of the points of calls. In that Draft version produced 31st March Commonly available testing tools can measure coverage of entry and exit points.

The search function in Figure It was called at only point, from one other C function in the same unit. Coverage of calls requires exercis- ing each statement in which the parser and scanner access the symbol table, but this would almost certainly be satisfied by a set of test cases exercising each production in the grammar accepted by the parser.

When procedures maintain internal state local variables that persist from call to call , or when they modify global state, then properties of interfaces may only be revealed by sequences of several calls. In object-oriented pro- gramming, local state is manipulated by procedures called methods, and sys- tematic testing necessarily concerns sequences of method calls on the same object.

While these complications may arise even in conventional procedural programs e. Not surprisingly, then, approaches to systematically exercising sequences of pro- cedure calls are beginning to emerge mainly in the field of object-oriented testing, and we therefore cover them in Chapter This is primarily exception handling.

The relations among these criteria are illustrated in Figure The search function was analogous in this case to a private internal method of a class. The hierarchy can be roughly divided into a part that relates requirements for covering program paths, and another part that relates requirements for covering combinations of conditions in branch decisions.

Nuclear Structure from a Simple Perspective. R. F. Casten

The two parts come together at branch coverage. Above branch coverage, path-oriented criteria and condition-oriented criteria are generally separate, because there is con- siderable cost and little apparent benefit in combining them.

Statement cov- erage is at the bottom of the subsumes hierarchy for systematic coverage of control flow. Applying any of the structural coverage criteria, therefore, im- plies at least executing all the program statements. This is true even for the statement coverage criterion, weak as it is. Unreachable statements can occur as a result of defensive programming e. Stronger coverage criteria tend to require coverage of more infeasible ele- ments. For example, in discussing multiple condition coverage, we implicitly assumed that basic conditions were independent and could therefore occur in any combination.

In reality, basic conditions may be comparisons or other relational expressions and may be interdependent in ways that make certain combinations infeasible.

Fortunately, short- circuit evaluation rules ensure that the combination hFalse; Falsei is not re- quired for multiple condition coverage of this particular expression in a C or Java program. In the trivial case where these if statements occur together, the problem is both easy to understand and to avoid by placing the second if within an else clause , but essentially the same interdependence can occur when the decisions are separated by other code.

The other main option is requiring justification of each element left un- covered. Explaining why each element is uncovered has the salutory effect of distinguishing between defensive coding and sloppy coding or maintenance, and may also motivate simpler coding styles. However, it is more expensive because it requires manual inspection and understanding of each element left uncovered and is unlikely to be cost-effective for criteria that impose test obligations for large numbers of infeasible paths.

This problem, even more than the large number of test cases that may be required, leads us to conclude that stringent path-oriented coverage criteria are seldom useful. Structural coverage criteria are not incremental in this sense.

Even a small change has an unpredictable effect on coverage. If a set of test cases has achieved a certain level of coverage before the change, it is impossible to determine what level of coverage the same test set will produce after the program change. This implies that measurement of structural coverage in quickly evolving software cannot be used in the same way it might for a stable unit.

For example, during development of a unit, structural coverage might be used to identify untested elements, but measures of satisfaction of cover- age would be of little value. When the unit is delivered to an independent test group, structural coverage could be more profitably used as an indicator of the thoroughness of testing by the developers, or as a termination condition.

Open Research Issues Devising and comparing structural criteria was a hot topic in the 80s. It is no longer an active research area for imperative programming, but new pro- gramming paradigms or design techniques present new challanges. Poly- morphism, dynamic binding, object oriented and distributed code open new problems and require new techniques, as discussed in other chapters.

Appli- cability of structural criteria to architectural design descriptions is still under investigation. Usefulness of structural criteria for implicit control flow has been addressed only recently.

Early testing research, including research on structural coverage criteria, was concerned largely with improving the fault-detection effectiveness of test- ing. Today, the most pressing issues are cost and schedule. Better auto- mated techniques for identifying infeasible paths will be necessary before Draft version produced 31st March Alternatively, for many applications it may be more appropriate to gather evidence of feasibility from actual product use; this is called residual test coverage monitoring and is a topic of current re- search.

The incrementality problem described above is particularly impor- tant in the context of rapid cycles of product development and change, and will surely be a topic of further testing research for the next several years.

In particular we expect further research in inferring coverage during regression testing. It is a classic despite its age, which is evident from the limited set of techniques addressed and the programming language used in the examples.

The excellent survey by Adrion et al. Frankl and Weyuker [FW93] provide a modern treatment of the subsumption hierarchy among structural coverage criteria. Woodward et al. Cyclomatic testing is described by Mc- Cabe [McC83]. Related Topics Readers with a strong interest in coverage criteria should continue with the next chapter, which presents data flow testing criteria. Others may wish to proceed to chapters that describe application of structural testing in the par- ticular problem domains.

Chapter 16 describes testing programs with com- plex data structures, and Chapter 17 discusses testing object-oriented pro- grams. Readers wishing a more comprehensive view of unit testing should continue with Chapters 20 on test data generation and 21 on design of test scaffolding.

Tool support for structural testing discussed in Chapter The process context of structural testing is described in Chapter Richards Adrion, Martha A. Branstad, and John C. Validation, verification, and testing of computer software.Pankratius' current research concentrates on how to make parallel programming easier and covers a range of research topics including auto-tuning, language design, debugging, and empirical studies.

Highlights of the book include Interplay among technical and non-technical issues in crafting an approach to software quality, with chapters devoted to planning and monitoring the software quality process. Download Free eBook:Examples and Counterexamples in Graph Theory repost - Free chm, pdf ebooks rapidshare download, ebook torrents bittorrent download.

In object-oriented pro- gramming, local state is manipulated by procedures called methods, and sys- tematic testing necessarily concerns sequences of method calls on the same object. For the stan- dard control flow graph models discussed in Chapter 6, the relation between coverage of statements and coverage of nodes is monotonic, i.

BRITNI from Richmond
I do enjoy reading novels often . Also read my other posts. One of my hobbies is tennis.
>