This document provides test case identification and analysis for the MTEST marking and grading application. It includes real-world examples of software failures, test case scenarios based on software requirements, boundary value analysis, and error guessing test cases.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running head:MTEST TEST DESIGN AND ANALYSIS MTEST Test Design and Analysis Name of the Student Name of the University Author Note
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
1 TEST CASE IDENTIFICATION FOR MTEST Question 1: Real world example of software failure A range of factors can be at play leading to software failures. In most cases these can be due to making repeated changes without any plans for conducting follow up tests (Grottke et al, 2015). Another vital role is played by the security aspect which is always under scanner. When software programs are built without addressing the loopholes, attackers spare no time in exploiting the vulnerabilities causing damages to both end user and the service provider (Kanewala, Bieman & Ben‐Hur, 2016). Glitches and incomplete builds of the software programs result in generation of erroneous output. Flights in the aviation industry generally get cancelled because of bad weather and not software. However in December 2014, one air traffic control centre (ATC) was compelled to close down the airspace over London as the software tasked with management of departures as well as arrivals started malfunctioning. Although this software got repaired almost immediately and brought back up at the pretty fast, the consequences suffered as a result major and affected flights widely. Heathrow ended up reporting a cancellation of more than 50 flights many of which had to turn back to their originating locations. The entire incident was considered to be a technical problem at the Air Traffic Control centre of Swanwick in England. This particular ATC is known for repeatedly suffering from one issue to another. The responsible governing body NATS had to apologise for the incident. Though official report by NATS blamed power outage, other reports mentioned of a bug in the software responsible for sequencing landing and take offs that could have been prevented if better software testing was conducted before implementation.
2 TEST CASE IDENTIFICATION FOR MTEST Question 2: Identifying the test cases according to the scenarios created based on requirements of the software Different software testing strategies utilized for identifying the test cases of the marking and grading application MTEST are negative testing, error guessing test cases, boundary value analysis and equivalence class partitioning(Scott et al, 2015). The list of test cases are given in the table below. MTEST Application Test Design Test Case_IDScenariosTest Cases Verify that input files with question count 0 gets executed MTST001 Validate that the title record has data Verify error script for title records having no data MTST002 Validate No. of questions >= 1, <= 999 Verify that input files having No. of questions: 1 get executed MTST003 Validate No. of questions >= 1, <= 999 Verify that input files having No. of questions: 999 get executed MTST004 Validate No. of questions >= 1, <= 999 Verify that error script present when No. of questions equal 0 MTST005 Validate No. of questions >= 1, <= 999 Verify that error script present when No. of questions equal 1000
3 TEST CASE IDENTIFICATION FOR MTEST MTST006 Validate record set count in columns (10 – 59) Verify that specific record present for questions 1 - 50 between columns (10, 59) MTST007 Validate record set count in columns (10 – 59) Verify that two records present for questions 51 – 100 between columns (10, 59) MTST008 Validate record set count in columns (10 – 59) Verify that three records present for questions 101 - 150 between columns (10, 59) MTST009 Validate record set count in columns (10 – 59) Verify that maximum records supported is present for 999 questions between columns (10, 59) MTST010 Validate student name in columns 1 to 9 of student records Verify that student names present in columns 1 to 9 of student records MTST011 Validate column 80 data for student and question records Verify that error script present for input files having wrong column 80 data for student and question records
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
4 TEST CASE IDENTIFICATION FOR MTEST Question 3: Test Cases on BVA (Boundary Value Analysis) The software testing strategy Boundary Value Analysis or BVA deals with testing applications by using values at each end of equivalence class partitions as per the requirement specifications of the application (Niiranen et al, 2017). This is how the testing strategy inspects the reliability of a software. Boundary values observed for the application MTEST are found to be 1000, 999, 1 and 0 (Smelyanskiy, Sawaya, & Aspuru-Guzik, 2016). The test cases identified with this testing strategy are: Verify that error script present when No. of questions equal 1000 Verify that input files having No. of questions: 999 get executed Verify that input files having No. of questions: 1 get executed Verify that error script present when No. of questions equal 0 Question 4: Error guessing test cases for MTEST marking and grading application Error guessing is the type of testing strategy where the tester conducts the tests based on his own skills and experience to figure out the errors in software programs(Qu et al, 2015). As a result, the experience and level of understanding of the test analyst plays a vital role here. Error guessing test cases obtained for the MTEST grading application are: Verify that maximum records supported is present for 999 questions between columns (10, 59) Verify that error script present for input files having wrong column 80 data for student and question records
5 TEST CASE IDENTIFICATION FOR MTEST
6 TEST CASE IDENTIFICATION FOR MTEST References Grottke, M., Kim, D. S., Mansharamani, R., Nambiar, M., Natella, R., & Trivedi, K. S. (2015). Recovery from software failures caused by mandelbugs.IEEE Transactions on Reliability,65(1), 70-87. Kanewala, U., Bieman, J. M., & Ben‐Hur, A. (2016). Predicting metamorphic relations for testing scientific software: a machine learning approach using graph kernels.Software testing, verification and reliability,26(3), 245-269. Niiranen, J., Kiendl, J., Niemi, A. H., & Reali, A. (2017). Isogeometric analysis for sixth- orderboundaryvalueproblemsofgradient-elasticKirchhoffplates.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,316, 328-348. Qu, M., Cui, N., Zou, B., & Wu, X. (2015, January). An Embedded Software Testing Requirements Modeling Tool Describing Static and Dynamic Characteristics. In2015 International Symposium on Computers & Informatics. Atlantis Press. Scott, C., Wundsam, A., Raghavan, B., Panda, A., Or, A., Lai, J., ... & Acharya, H. B. (2015). Troubleshooting blackbox SDN control software with minimal causal sequences. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review,44(4), 395-406. Smelyanskiy, M., Sawaya, N. P., & Aspuru-Guzik, A. (2016). qHiPSTER: the quantum high performance software testing environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.07195.