Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Test Report: Structural Testing vs Error Guessing vs Boundary Value Analysis

2 Pages527 Words57 Views
   

Added on  2019-09-21

About This Document

This test report compares the effectiveness of Structural Testing, Error Guessing, and Boundary Value Analysis techniques in identifying defects in a program. The report suggests that Structural Testing is only useful when the actual source code is available, while Error Guessing and Boundary Value Analysis are more effective in identifying edge cases and input cases respectively.

Test Report: Structural Testing vs Error Guessing vs Boundary Value Analysis

   Added on 2019-09-21

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
Test ReportThe test results clearly show that the structural generation technique used (combination of Branch and Condition/Decision technique) was not sufficient to identify all the defects. In fact, it helped finding a single ambiguous error that had to be tested further to understand its impact. The chart (Appendix A) shows the correlation between the number of bugs found for every technique used.Considering these findings I would suggest that the structural testing is only useful when the actual (final) source code is available. While technique provides an easy full code coverage, it does not easily allow to identify and understand the edge cases for the control structures, neither does it guarantee the absence of defects (Yang, et al 2006). However, while test cases show that this technique is not too good in finding unexpected bugs outside the requirement scope, it is arguably the best technique to check if a program conforms to its specification.Error Guessing technique proved to be much more effective in this task, mainly because it leveraged human intuition and experience. Goal of the tests generated using this technique was to tests program requirement/documentation flaws and logic in extreme cases. While the success of this technique in this particular case is more of an exception, or luck as Kuckis would put it (2013), I would argue that when time is not a constraint, this technique allows to generate very creative tests that might be quite useful to have in the test suite.Lastly, Boundary Value Analysis has proven to be satisfactory in testing edge input cases. It allowed to find a new defect which was not identified with any other techniques, by executingjust 3 tests. Technique is very easy to apply and its error-finding capacity is high (Müller 2005). I would say that boundary value analysis is very important in any test suite and should probably be used as the first option when generating the tests.In conclusion I am very disappointed in how unsuccessfully the structural testing was appliedin this task. However my understanding is that given the circumstances it was a pure luck that the error guessing performed much better. The Boundary Analysis effectiveness, on the other hand, was predictable, and I am completely satisfied with its result.Word Count: 376ReferencesKuckis, T. 2013. Error Guessing. Available at: www.elen.ktu.lt/studentai/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=error_guessing.ppt (Accessed: 08 December 2015)Müller, T., et al. 2005 Certified Tester. Foundation Level Syllabus (2005). Available at: http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/istqbsyll.pdf (Accessed: 08 December 2015)
Test Report: Structural Testing vs Error Guessing vs Boundary Value Analysis_1

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Test Generation Techniques for Desklib Online Library
|2
|888
|366