Week 12 [Mon, Nov 4th] - Topics

Boundary Value Analysis (BVA) is a test case design heuristic that is based on the observation that bugs often result from incorrect handling of boundaries of equivalence partitions. This is not surprising, as the end points of boundaries are often used in branching instructions, etc., where the programmer can make mistakes.

BVA suggests that when picking test inputs from an equivalence partition, values near boundaries (i.e. boundary values) are more likely to find bugs.

Boundary values are sometimes called corner cases.

Typically, you should choose three values around the boundary to test: one value from the boundary, one value just below the boundary, and one value just above the boundary. The number of values to pick depends on other factors, such as the cost of each test case.

An SUT can take multiple inputs. You can select values for each input (using equivalence partitioning, boundary value analysis, or some other technique).

Testing all possible combinations is effective but not efficient. If you test all possible combinations for the above example, you need to test 6x5x2x6=360 cases. Doing so has a higher chance of discovering bugs (i.e. effective) but the number of test cases will be too high (i.e. not efficient). Therefore, you need smarter ways to combine test inputs that are both effective and efficient.

Given below are some basic strategies for generating a set of test cases by combining multiple test inputs.

The all combinations strategy generates test cases for each unique combination of test inputs.

The at least once strategy includes each test input at least once.

The all pairs strategy creates test cases so that for any given pair of inputs, all combinations between them are tested. It is based on the observation that a bug is rarely the result of more than two interacting factors. The resulting number of test cases is lower than the all combinations strategy, but higher than the at least once approach.

A variation of this strategy is to test all pairs of inputs but only for inputs that could influence each other.

The random strategy generates test cases using one of the other strategies and then picks a subset randomly (presumably because the original set of test cases is too big).

There are other strategies that can be used too.

Consider the following scenario.

Suppose these are the test cases being considered.

It looks like the test cases were created using the at least once strategy. After running these tests, can you confirm that the square-format label printing is done correctly?

• Answer: No.
• Reason: Cherry -- the only input that can produce a square-format label -- is in a negative test case which produces an error message instead of a label. If there is a bug in the code that prints labels in square-format, these tests cases will not trigger that bug.

In this case, a useful heuristic to apply is each valid input must appear at least once in a positive test case. Cherry is a valid test input and you must ensure that it appears at least once in a positive test case. Here are the updated test cases after applying that heuristic.

To verify the SUT is handling a certain invalid input correctly, it is better to test that invalid input without combining it with other invalid inputs. For example, consider the test case 4 of test cases designed in [Heuristic: each valid input at least once in a positive test case]. After running that test case, can you be sure that the error message “invalid fruit” is caused by the invalid fruitName Dog?

• Answer: No
• Reason: Because it could have been (incorrectly) triggered by the other invalid unitPrice of -1 in that test case, due to a bug in the code.

Therefore, if that test case was intended to verify that the invalid fruitName Dog triggers the "invalid fruit" error message, it is better not to include the invalid unitPrice -1 in that test case at the same time. If the invalid value -1 needs to be tested, we should test it in a separate test case.

After applying the above insight to our running example, you get the following test cases.

This is not to say never have more than one invalid input in a test case. In fact, an SUT might work correctly when only one invalid input is given but not when a certain combination of multiple invalid inputs is given. Hence, it is still useful to have test cases with multiple invalid inputs, after you already have confirmed that the SUT works when only one invalid input is given.

Test invalid inputs individually before combining them is the heuristic we learned here. As a test case with multiple invalid inputs by itself does not confirm that the SUT works for each of those invalid inputs, you are better off testing the SUT with one-invalid-input-at-a-time first, and if you can afford more test cases, also testing with combinations of invalid inputs.

Software Quality Assurance (QA) is the process of ensuring that the software being built has the required levels of quality.

While testing is the most common activity used in QA, there are other complementary techniques such as static analysis, code reviews, and formal verification.

Quality Assurance = Validation + Verification

QA involves checking two aspects:

1. Validation: are you building the right system i.e., are the requirements correct?
2. Verification: are you building the system right i.e., are the requirements implemented correctly?

Whether something belongs under validation or verification is not that important. What is more important is that both are done, instead of limiting to only verification (i.e., remember that the requirements can be wrong too).

Code review is the systematic examination of code with the intention of finding where the code can be improved.

Reviews can be done in various forms. Some examples below:

• Pull Request reviews

  • Project Management Platforms such as GitHub and BitBucket allow the new code to be proposed as Pull Requests and provide the ability for others to review the code in the PR.

• In pair programming

  • As pair programming involves two programmers working on the same code at the same time, there is an implicit review of the code by the other member of the pair.

• Formal inspections

  • Inspections involve a group of people systematically examining project artifacts to discover defects. Members of the inspection team play various roles during the process, such as:

    • the author - the creator of the artifact
    • the moderator - the planner and executor of the inspection meeting
    • the secretary - the recorder of the findings of the inspection
    • the inspector/reviewer - the one who inspects/reviews the artifact

Advantages of code review over testing:

• It can detect functionality defects as well as other problems such as coding standard violations.
• It can verify non-code artifacts and incomplete code.
• It does not require test drivers or stubs.

Disadvantages:

• It is a manual process and therefore, error prone.

Static analysis of code can find useful information such as unused variables, unhandled exceptions, style errors, and statistics. Most modern IDEs come with some inbuilt static analysis capabilities. For example, an IDE can highlight unused variables as you type the code into the editor.

The term static in static analysis refers to the fact that the code is analyzed without executing the code. In contrast, dynamic analysis requires the code to be executed to gather additional information about the code e.g., performance characteristics.

Higher-end static analysis tools (static analyzers) can perform more complex analysis such as locating potential bugs, memory leaks, inefficient code structures, etc.

Linters are a subset of static analyzers that specifically aim to locate areas where the code can be made 'cleaner'.

Formal verification uses mathematical techniques to prove the correctness of a program.

Advantages:

• Formal verification can be used to prove the absence of errors. In contrast, testing can only prove the presence of errors, not their absence.

Disadvantages:

• It only proves the compliance with the specification, but not the actual utility of the software.
• It requires highly specialized notations and knowledge which makes it an expensive technique to administer. Therefore, formal verifications are more commonly used in safety-critical software such as flight control systems.

In 2001, a group of prominent software engineering practitioners met and brainstormed for an alternative to documentation-driven, heavyweight software development processes that were used in most large projects at the time. This resulted in something called the agile manifesto (a vision statement of what they were looking to do).

You are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it.

Through this work you have come to value:

• Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
• Working software over comprehensive documentation
• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
• Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, you value the items on the left more.
_{-- Extract from the Agile Manifesto}

Subsequently, some of the signatories of the manifesto went on to create process models that try to follow it. These processes are collectively called agile processes. Some of the key features of agile approaches are:

• Requirements are prioritized based on the needs of the user, are clarified regularly (at times almost on a daily basis) with the entire project team, and are factored into the development schedule as appropriate.
• Instead of doing a very elaborate and detailed design and a project plan for the whole project, the team works based on a rough project plan and a high level design that evolves as the project goes on.
• There is a strong emphasis on complete transparency and responsibility sharing among the team members. The team is responsible together for the delivery of the product. Team members are accountable, and regularly and openly share progress with each other and with the user.

There are a number of agile processes in the development world today. eXtreme Programming (XP) and Scrum are two of the well-known ones.

This description of Scrum was adapted from Wikipedia [retrieved on 18/10/2011], emphasis added:

Scrum is a process skeleton that contains sets of practices and predefined roles. The main roles in Scrum are:

• The Scrum Master, who maintains the processes (typically in lieu of a project manager)
• The Product Owner, who represents the stakeholders and the business
• The Team, a cross-functional group who do the actual analysis, design, implementation, testing, etc.

A Scrum project is divided into iterations called Sprints. A sprint is the basic unit of development in Scrum. Sprints tend to last between one week and one month, and are a timeboxed (i.e. restricted to a specific duration) effort of a constant length.

Each sprint is preceded by a planning meeting, where the tasks for the sprint are identified and an estimated commitment for the sprint goal is made, and followed by a review or retrospective meeting, where the progress is reviewed and lessons for the next sprint are identified.

During each sprint, the team creates a potentially deliverable product increment (for example, working and tested software). The set of features that go into a sprint come from the product backlog, which is a prioritized set of high level requirements of work to be done. Which backlog items go into the sprint is determined during the sprint planning meeting. During this meeting, the Product Owner informs the team of the items in the product backlog that he or she wants completed. The team then determines how much of this they can commit to complete during the next sprint, and records this in the sprint backlog. During a sprint, no one is allowed to change the sprint backlog, which means that the requirements are frozen for that sprint. Development is timeboxed such that the sprint must end on time; if requirements are not completed for any reason they are left out and returned to the product backlog. After a sprint is completed, the team demonstrates the use of the software.

Scrum enables the creation of self-organizing teams by encouraging co-location of all team members, and verbal communication between all team members and disciplines in the project.

A key principle of Scrum is its recognition that during a project the customers can change their minds about what they want and need (often called requirements churn), and that unpredicted challenges cannot be easily addressed in a traditional predictive or planned manner. As such, Scrum adopts an empirical approach—accepting that the problem cannot be fully understood or defined, focusing instead on maximizing the team’s ability to deliver quickly and respond to emerging requirements.

Daily Scrum is another key scrum practice. The description below was adapted from https://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com (emphasis added):

The following description was adapted from the XP home page, emphasis added:

Extreme Programming (XP) stresses customer satisfaction. Instead of delivering everything you could possibly want on some date far in the future, this process delivers the software you need as you need it.

XP aims to empower developers to confidently respond to changing customer requirements, even late in the lifecycle.

XP emphasizes teamwork. Managers, customers, and developers are all equal partners in a collaborative team. XP implements a simple, yet effective environment enabling teams to become highly productive. The team self-organizes around the problem to solve it as efficiently as possible.

XP aims to improve a software project in five essential ways: communication, simplicity, feedback, respect, and courage. Extreme Programmers constantly communicate with their customers and fellow programmers. They keep their design simple and clean. They get feedback by testing their software starting on day one. Every small success deepens their respect for the unique contributions of each and every team member. With this foundation, Extreme Programmers are able to courageously respond to changing requirements and technology.

XP has a set of simple rules. XP is a lot like a jig saw puzzle with many small pieces. Individually the pieces make no sense, but when combined together a complete picture can be seen. This flow chart shows how Extreme Programming's rules work together.

Pair programming, CRC cards, project velocity, and standup meetings are some interesting topics related to XP. Refer to extremeprogramming.org to find out more about XP.