white box testing strategies vs. code inspections and walkthroughs

white box testing strategies vs. code inspections and walkthroughs

Post by Prof. » Fri, 04 Jul 2003 02:19:59



Hi, I'm new to software testing research.  It seems to me that it
would be pointless to perform white box coverage methods if code
inspections and walkthroughs are done. Is this an ideology held by
many people in practice?

Rod

 
 
 

white box testing strategies vs. code inspections and walkthroughs

Post by jp » Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:58:38


Hi,
   although code inspection and walkthroughs are done, white box testing is
still a must.
During code inspection, it is too easy to loose specifications/requirements.
Also walktrhough
are normally performed for sunny day scenarios and maybe some general error
scenarios.
The vast vajority of code is still written for error scenarios with
walkthrough do not always
covers.

 With all the best CI and walktrough, white box testing is still required.

Cheers,
  JP


Quote:> Hi, I'm new to software testing research.  It seems to me that it
> would be pointless to perform white box coverage methods if code
> inspections and walkthroughs are done. Is this an ideology held by
> many people in practice?

> Rod


 
 
 

white box testing strategies vs. code inspections and walkthroughs

Post by Darrell Graing » Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:01:48



Quote:> Hi, I'm new to software testing research.  It seems to me that it
> would be pointless to perform white box coverage methods if code
> inspections and walkthroughs are done. Is this an ideology held by
> many people in practice?

Pointless is a fairly strong word. I think some people might question the
value of performing both whitebox coverage methods and code inspections.
Each company is different though.

Obviously if I'm creating software that nets me thousands of dollars I'm
going to question whether I want to invest the time and money to do
multiple methods of testing. On the other hand, if I'm making millions and
charging cutomers thousands of dollars a copy then they are going to
expect more and I should take the time to do both operations.

Bottom line, if you can afford to do both, do both.

--

"iqgbgxmdbjlgdv.lksrqek.n";char *strchr(const char *,int);while(
*i){j+=strchr(t,*i++)-t;j%=sizeof t-1;putchar(t[j]);} return 0;}

 
 
 

white box testing strategies vs. code inspections and walkthroughs

Post by Brian Scher » Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:15:05



> Hi, I'm new to software testing research.  It seems to me that it
> would be pointless to perform white box coverage methods if code
> inspections and walkthroughs are done. Is this an ideology held by
> many people in practice?

> Rod

It also depends on the industry etc.

In the medical device industry, you better do both (code walk through
and white box testing) for the critical units of code. If you don't
and a patient/end user dies, you could leave yourself (company) open
for a lawsuit.

In the defense industry, mission critical, it is required.

If you need more info, look to the military complex. They have spent
millions of dollars into research on how to develop software, and make
it more dependable, reliable, safer, and more maintainable.

Slowly their research results are coming into the commercial world.

Try the software engineering intitute (SEI) for more info.

Hope this helps,

Brian Scherer

 
 
 

white box testing strategies vs. code inspections and walkthroughs

Post by Rob » Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:18:01


Rod,

I agree with Brian - both where possible.

Code reviews are great, but they can't compensate for thing like:
- run time problems such as slow execution
- memory leaks - not necessarily from your app but from others
- writing the logic for the tests very often throws up UI issues
- what about stress testing?

I'm of the 'test it till it breaks' school.  I've found some bugs that I
couldn't pick up in the code reviews only show up after 23 hours solid
hammering!

HTH
--
Rob Grattan
R&D Software Pty. Ltd.

 
 
 

white box testing strategies vs. code inspections and walkthroughs

Post by Wayne Woodruf » Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:59:41


They are not mutually exclusive.  A good process should use both.  

For example, in the embedded world, there are pieces of code that are
very difficult to execute because they are used to trap hardware
failures.  Replicating the hardware failure can be difficult or
prohibitively expensive.  In those cases, an inspection would be
invaluable.  

Likewise, a code inspection can miss thing uncovered by testing such
as runtime errors, thread synchronization, etc

Wayne


> Hi, I'm new to software testing research.  It seems to me that it
> would be pointless to perform white box coverage methods if code
> inspections and walkthroughs are done. Is this an ideology held by
> many people in practice?

> Rod

 
 
 

white box testing strategies vs. code inspections and walkthroughs

Post by Patrick Baile » Tue, 15 Jul 2003 02:54:16


Yes and no.  Some (ie Poston) believe that the only testing that is
worthwhile is specification based testing.  However, I've seen a balanced
approach is usually best.  If you use appropriate metric tools (ie
complexity analysis), a story begins to form about the quality of the code
itself.  One of the tenets to complexity measurement is to determine if the
code is beginning to go beyond a typical person's comprehension. (See
Miller's article about the magic number 7.)  If there are too many decision
points, the average person would find it difficult to follow the code.
While this has ramifications for maintenance, it also implies the code
review may be ineffective and you may want to use this to support white box
testing.


Quote:> Hi, I'm new to software testing research.  It seems to me that it
> would be pointless to perform white box coverage methods if code
> inspections and walkthroughs are done. Is this an ideology held by
> many people in practice?

> Rod

 
 
 

white box testing strategies vs. code inspections and walkthroughs

Post by Blue Je » Tue, 15 Jul 2003 04:52:36


For any sound software development project,
you MUST use both. Code inspection, unit testing etc
can save lots of QA's time, but overall functinality and whitebox
testing is obviously necessary to ensure the software works
as is designed and specified.
_________________________________
Bugzero all-in-one: bug tracking & help desk
Free try:  http://www.websina.com/bugzero/

> They are not mutually exclusive.  A good process should use both.  

> For example, in the embedded world, there are pieces of code that are
> very difficult to execute because they are used to trap hardware
> failures.  Replicating the hardware failure can be difficult or
> prohibitively expensive.  In those cases, an inspection would be
> invaluable.  

> Likewise, a code inspection can miss thing uncovered by testing such
> as runtime errors, thread synchronization, etc

> Wayne


> > Hi, I'm new to software testing research.  It seems to me that it
> > would be pointless to perform white box coverage methods if code
> > inspections and walkthroughs are done. Is this an ideology held by
> > many people in practice?

> > Rod

 
 
 

1. Source Code Walk-throughs/Inspections

Hello,

As a QA and Validation Testing Engineer, I have set-up what I call
source code reviews, but I face hostility from the development
team.

The goals of our code reviews are to raise potential bugs that
may not always be seens by each developper in his code and to
ensure that all the code of all the developpers is formatted
someway the same (we are going to use a tool for that second item).

How do you call the exercise of having the code written by
developpers reviewed by other developpers during the
implementation process? We call that Source Code Reviewing.

At what level is the source code reviewed? Lexical,
syntactical, or at a higher level?

Do you use code analysis or code checkers tools to take care
of all the verifications against your Source Code Instructions
(we call them like that)? We don't right now, but we are
evaluating some tools.

Do you organize your reviews at periodic times (every X months
or weeks), or do you organize reviews for each software
component when it is finished?

Do you have each developper present his code with slides to the
entire team, or does he simply distribute his code to all
reviewers on a paper copy? I does not have the same cost!

I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you.

Stephane Renard
Senior Software Quality Engineer
Storage Technology

2. Help: GTAR240 not compatible with AIX Tar?

3. Code Walkthroughs/Formal Inspections in C & C++

4. Outlook 2002 scroll issue

5. glass box/clear box (white box) test definition

6. How to protect lcc-win32 from viruses?

7. Beta testing VS code inspection

8. Re-sending package with 2.0

9. Glass box testing/ white box testing

10. USA/MA -- (2) SOFTWARE TEST Engineers Needed ASAP - Black Box & White Box Testing

11. Black vs White Box Testing