What is 'Software Quality Assurance'? Software QA involves the entire software development PROCESS - monitoring and improving the process, making sure that any agreed-upon standards and procedures are followed, and ensuring that problems are found and dealt with. It is oriented to 'prevention'. (See the Bookstore section's 'Software QA' category for a list of useful books on Software Quality Assurance.)

What is 'Software Testing'? Testing involves operation of a system or application under controlled conditions and evaluating the results (eg, 'if the user is in interface A of the application while using hardware B, and does C, then D should happen'). The controlled conditions should include both normal and abnormal conditions. Testing should intentionally attempt to make things go wrong to determine if things happen when they shouldn't or things don't happen when they should. It is oriented to 'detection'. (See the Bookstore section's 'Software Testing' category for a list of useful books on Software Testing.)

• Organizations vary considerably in how they assign responsibility for QA and testing. Sometimes they're the combined responsibility of one group or individual. Also common are project teams that include a mix of testers and developers who work closely together, with overall QA processes monitored by project managers. It will depend on what best fits an organization's size and business structure.

What are some recent major computer system failures caused by software bugs?

• In March of 2002 it was reported that software bugs in Britain's national tax system resulted in more than 100,000 erroneous tax overcharges. The problem was partly attibuted to the difficulty of testing the integration of multiple systems.

• A newspaper columnist reported in July 2001 that a serious flaw was found in off-the-shelf software that had long been used in systems for tracking certain U.S. nuclear materials. The same software had been recently donated to another country to be used in tracking their own nuclear materials, and it was not until scientists in that country discovered the problem, and shared the information, that U.S. officials became aware of the problems.

• According to newspaper stories in mid-2001, a major systems development contractor was fired and sued over problems with a large retirement plan management system. According to the reports, the client claimed that system deliveries were late, the software had excessive defects, and it caused other systems to crash.

• In January of 2001 newspapers reported that a major European railroad was hit by the aftereffects of the Y2K bug. The company found that many of their newer trains would not run due to their inability to recognize the date '31/12/2000'; the trains were started by altering the control system's date settings.

• News reports in September of 2000 told of a software vendor settling a lawsuit with a large mortgage lender; the vendor had reportedly delivered an online mortgage processing system that did not meet specifications, was delivered late, and didn't work.

page2 of 77

• In early 2000, major problems were reported with a new computer system in a large suburban U.S. public school district with 100,000+ students; problems included 10,000 erroneous report cards and students left stranded by failed class registration systems; the district's CIO was fired. The school district decided to reinstate it's original 25-year old system for at least a year until the bugs were worked out of the new system by the software vendors.

• In October of 1999 the $125 million NASA Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft was believed to be lost in space due to a simple data conversion error. It was determined that spacecraft software used certain data in English units that should have been in metric units. Among other tasks, the orbiter was to serve as a communications relay for the Mars Polar Lander mission, which failed for unknown reasons in December 1999. Several investigating panels were convened to determine the process failures that allowed the error to go undetected.

• Bugs in software supporting a large commercial high-speed data network affected 70,000 business customers over a period of 8 days in August of 1999. Among those affected was the electronic trading system of the largest U.S. futures exchange, which was shut down for most of a week as a result of the outages.

• In April of 1999 a software bug caused the failure of a $1.2 billion military satellite launch, the costliest unmanned accident in the history of Cape Canaveral launches. The failure was the latest in a string of launch failures, triggering a complete military and industry review of U.S. space launch programs, including software integration and testing processes. Congressional oversight hearings were requested.

• A small town in Illinois received an unusually large monthly electric bill of $7 million in March of 1999. This was about 700 times larger than its normal bill. It turned out to be due to bugs in new software that had been purchased by the local power company to deal with Y2K software issues.

• In early 1999 a major computer game company recalled all copies of a popular new product due to software problems. The company made a public apology for releasing a product before it was ready.

• The computer system of a major online U.S. stock trading service failed during trading hours several times over a period of days in February of 1999 according to nationwide news reports. The problem was reportedly due to bugs in a software upgrade intended to speed online trade confirmations.

• In April of 1998 a major U.S. data communications network failed for 24 hours, crippling a large part of some U.S. credit card transaction authorization systems as well as other large U.S. bank, retail, and government data systems. The cause was eventually traced to a software bug.

• January 1998 news reports told of software problems at a major U.S. telecommunications company that resulted in no charges for long distance calls for a month for 400,000 customers. The problem went undetected until customers called up with questions about their bills.

• In November of 1997 the stock of a major health industry company dropped 60% due to reports of failures in computer billing systems, problems with a large database conversion, and inadequate software testing. It was reported that more than $100,000,000 in receivables had to be written off and that multi-million dollar fines were levied on the company by government agencies.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page3 of 77

• A retail store chain filed suit in August of 1997 against a transaction processing system vendor (not a credit card company) due to the software's inability to handle credit cards with year 2000 expiration dates.

• In August of 1997 one of the leading consumer credit reporting companies reportedly shut down their new public web site after less than two days of operation due to software problems. The new site allowed web site visitors instant access, for a small fee, to their personal credit reports. However, a number of initial users ended up viewing each others' reports instead of their own, resulting in irate customers and nationwide publicity. The problem was attributed to "...unexpectedly high demand from consumers and faulty software that routed the files to the wrong computers."

• In November of 1996, newspapers reported that software bugs caused the 411 telephone information system of one of the U.S. RBOC's to fail for most of a day. Most of the 2000 operators had to search through phone books instead of using their 13,000,000-listing database. The bugs were introduced by new software modifications and the problem software had been installed on both the production and backup systems. A spokesman for the software vendor reportedly stated that 'It had nothing to do with the integrity of the software. It was human error.'

• On June 4 1996 the first flight of the European Space Agency's new Ariane 5 rocket failed shortly after launching, resulting in an estimated uninsured loss of a half billion dollars. It was reportedly due to the lack of exception handling of a floating-point error in a conversion from a 64-bit integer to a 16-bit signed integer.

• Software bugs caused the bank accounts of 823 customers of a major U.S. bank to be credited with $924,844,208.32 each in May of 1996, according to newspaper reports. The American Bankers Association claimed it was the largest such error in banking history. A bank spokesman said the programming errors were corrected and all funds were recovered.

• Software bugs in a Soviet early-warning monitoring system nearly brought on nuclear war in 1983, according to news reports in early 1999. The software was supposed to filter out false missile detections caused by Soviet satellites picking up sunlight reflections off cloud-tops, but failed to do so. Disaster was averted when a Soviet commander, based on a what he said was a '...funny feeling in my gut', decided the apparent missile attack was a false alarm. The filtering software code was rewritten.

Why is it often hard for management to get serious about quality assurance? Solving problems is a high-visibility process; preventing problems is low-visibility. This is illustrated by an old parable:In ancient China there was a family of healers, one of whom was known throughout the land and employed as a physician to a great lord. The physician was asked which of his family was the most skillful healer. He replied, "I tend to the sick and dying with drastic and dramatic treatments, and on occasion someone is cured and my name gets out among the lords.""My elder brother cures sickness when it just begins to take root, and his skills are known among the local peasants and neighbors." "My eldest brother is able to sense the spirit of sickness and eradicate it before it takes form. His name is unknown outside our home."

Why does software have bugs?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page4 of 77

• miscommunication or no communication - as to specifics of what an application should or shouldn't do (the application's requirements).

• software complexity - the complexity of current software applications can be difficult to comprehend for anyone without experience in modern-day software development. Windows-type interfaces, client-server and distributed applications, data communications, enormous relational databases, and sheer size of applications have all contributed to the exponential growth in software/system complexity. And the use of object-oriented techniques can complicate instead of simplify a project unless it is well-engineered.

• programming errors - programmers, like anyone else, can make mistakes. • changing requirements - the customer may not understand the effects of

changes, or may understand and request them anyway - redesign, rescheduling of engineers, effects on other projects, work already completed that may have to be redone or thrown out, hardware requirements that may be affected, etc. If there are many minor changes or any major changes, known and unknown dependencies among parts of the project are likely to interact and cause problems, and the complexity of keeping track of changes may result in errors. Enthusiasm of engineering staff may be affected. In some fast-changing business environments, continuously modified requirements may be a fact of life. In this case, management must understand the resulting risks, and QA and test engineers must adapt and plan for continuous extensive testing to keep the inevitable bugs from running out of control - see 'What can be done if requirements are changing continuously?' in Part 2 of the FAQ.

• time pressures - scheduling of software projects is difficult at best, often requiring a lot of guesswork. When deadlines loom and the crunch comes, mistakes will be made.

• egos - people prefer to say things like: • 'no problem' • 'piece of cake'• 'I can whip that out in a few hours'• 'it should be easy to update that old code'•• instead of:• 'that adds a lot of complexity and we could end up• making a lot of mistakes'• 'we have no idea if we can do that; we'll wing it'• 'I can't estimate how long it will take, until I• take a close look at it'• 'we can't figure out what that old spaghetti code• did in the first place'•• If there are too many unrealistic 'no problem's', the• result is bugs.• • poorly documented code - it's tough to maintain and modify code that is badly

written or poorly documented; the result is bugs. In many organizations management provides no incentive for programmers to document their code or write clear, understandable code. In fact, it's usually the opposite: they get points mostly for quickly turning out code, and there's job security if nobody else can understand it ('if it was hard to write, it should be hard to read').

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page5 of 77

• software development tools - visual tools, class libraries, compilers, scripting tools, etc. often introduce their own bugs or are poorly documented, resulting in added bugs.

How can new Software QA processes be introduced in an existing organization?

• A lot depends on the size of the organization and the risks involved. For large organizations with high-risk (in terms of lives or property) projects, serious management buy-in is required and a formalized QA process is necessary.

• Where the risk is lower, management and organizational buy-in and QA implementation may be a slower, step-at-a-time process. QA processes should be balanced with productivity so as to keep bureaucracy from getting out of hand.

• For small groups or projects, a more ad-hoc process may be appropriate, depending on the type of customers and projects. A lot will depend on team leads or managers, feedback to developers, and ensuring adequate communications among customers, managers, developers, and testers.

• In all cases the most value for effort will be in requirements management processes, with a goal of clear, complete, testable requirement specifications or expectations.

(See the Bookstore section's 'Software QA', 'Software Engineering', and 'Project Management' categories for useful books with more information.)

What is verification? validation? Verification typically involves reviews and meetings to evaluate documents, plans, code, requirements, and specifications. This can be done with checklists, issues lists, walkthroughs, and inspection meetings. Validation typically involves actual testing and takes place after verifications are completed. The term 'IV & V' refers to Independent Verification and Validation.

What is a 'walkthrough'? A 'walkthrough' is an informal meeting for evaluation or informational purposes. Little or no preparation is usually required.

What's an 'inspection'? An inspection is more formalized than a 'walkthrough', typically with 3-8 people including a moderator, reader, and a recorder to take notes. The subject of the inspection is typically a document such as a requirements spec or a test plan, and the purpose is to find problems and see what's missing, not to fix anything. Attendees should prepare for this type of meeting by reading thru the document; most problems will be found during this preparation. The result of the inspection meeting should be a written report. Thorough preparation for inspections is difficult, painstaking work, but is one of the most cost effective methods of ensuring quality. Employees who are most skilled at inspections are like the 'eldest brother' in the parable in 'Why is it often hard for management to get serious about quality assurance?'. Their skill may have low visibility but they are extremely valuable to any software development organization, since bug prevention is far more cost-effective than bug detection.

What kinds of testing should be considered?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page6 of 77

• Black box testing - not based on any knowledge of internal design or code. Tests are based on requirements and functionality.

• White box testing - based on knowledge of the internal logic of an application's code. Tests are based on coverage of code statements, branches, paths, conditions.

• unit testing - the most 'micro' scale of testing; to test particular functions or code modules. Typically done by the programmer and not by testers, as it requires detailed knowledge of the internal program design and code. Not always easily done unless the application has a well-designed architecture with tight code; may require developing test driver modules or test harnesses.

• incremental integration testing - continuous testing of an application as new functionality is added; requires that various aspects of an application's functionality be independent enough to work separately before all parts of the program are completed, or that test drivers be developed as needed; done by programmers or by testers.

• integration testing - testing of combined parts of an application to determine if they function together correctly. The 'parts' can be code modules, individual applications, client and server applications on a network, etc. This type of testing is especially relevant to client/server and distributed systems.

• functional testing - black-box type testing geared to functional requirements of an application; this type of testing should be done by testers. This doesn't mean that the programmers shouldn't check that their code works before releasing it (which of course applies to any stage of testing.)

• system testing - black-box type testing that is based on overall requirements specifications; covers all combined parts of a system.

• end-to-end testing - similar to system testing; the 'macro' end of the test scale; involves testing of a complete application environment in a situation that mimics real-world use, such as interacting with a database, using network communications, or interacting with other hardware, applications, or systems if appropriate.

• sanity testing - typically an initial testing effort to determine if a new software version is performing well enough to accept it for a major testing effort. For example, if the new software is crashing systems every 5 minutes, bogging down systems to a crawl, or destroying databases, the software may not be in a 'sane' enough condition to warrant further testing in its current state.

• regression testing - re-testing after fixes or modifications of the software or its environment. It can be difficult to determine how much re-testing is needed, especially near the end of the development cycle. Automated testing tools can be especially useful for this type of testing.

• acceptance testing - final testing based on specifications of the end-user or customer, or based on use by end-users/customers over some limited period of time.

• load testing - testing an application under heavy loads, such as testing of a web site under a range of loads to determine at what point the system's response time degrades or fails.

• stress testing - term often used interchangeably with 'load' and 'performance' testing. Also used to describe such tests as system functional testing while under unusually heavy loads, heavy repetition of certain actions or inputs, input of large numerical values, large complex queries to a database system, etc.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page7 of 77

• performance testing - term often used interchangeably with 'stress' and 'load' testing. Ideally 'performance' testing (and any other 'type' of testing) is defined in requirements documentation or QA or Test Plans.

• usability testing - testing for 'user-friendliness'. Clearly this is subjective, and will depend on the targeted end-user or customer. User interviews, surveys, video recording of user sessions, and other techniques can be used. Programmers and testers are usually not appropriate as usability testers.

• install/uninstall testing - testing of full, partial, or upgrade install/uninstall processes.

• recovery testing - testing how well a system recovers from crashes, hardware failures, or other catastrophic problems.

• security testing - testing how well the system protects against unauthorized internal or external access, willful damage, etc; may require sophisticated testing techniques.

• compatibility testing - testing how well software performs in a particular hardware/software/operating system/network/etc. environment.

• exploratory testing - often taken to mean a creative, informal software test that is not based on formal test plans or test cases; testers may be learning the software as they test it.

• ad-hoc testing - similar to exploratory testing, but often taken to mean that the testers have significant understanding of the software before testing it.

• user acceptance testing - determining if software is satisfactory to an end-user or customer.

• comparison testing - comparing software weaknesses and strengths to competing products.

• alpha testing - testing of an application when development is nearing completion; minor design changes may still be made as a result of such testing. Typically done by end-users or others, not by programmers or testers.

• beta testing - testing when development and testing are essentially completed and final bugs and problems need to be found before final release. Typically done by end-users or others, not by programmers or testers.

• mutation testing - a method for determining if a set of test data or test cases is useful, by deliberately introducing various code changes ('bugs') and retesting with the original test data/cases to determine if the 'bugs' are detected. Proper implementation requires large computational resources.

(See the Bookstore section's 'Software Testing' category for useful books on Software Testing.)

What are 5 common problems in the software development process?

• poor requirements - if requirements are unclear, incomplete, too general, or not testable, there will be problems.

• unrealistic schedule - if too much work is crammed in too little time, problems are inevitable.

• inadequate testing - no one will know whether or not the program is any good until the customer complains or systems crash.

• featuritis - requests to pile on new features after development is underway; extremely common.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page8 of 77

• miscommunication - if developers don't know what's needed or customer's have erroneous expectations, problems are guaranteed.

(See the Bookstore section's 'Software QA', 'Software Engineering', and 'Project Management' categories for useful books with more information.)

What are 5 common solutions to software development problems?

• solid requirements - clear, complete, detailed, cohesive, attainable, testable requirements that are agreed to by all players. Use prototypes to help nail down requirements.

• realistic schedules - allow adequate time for planning, design, testing, bug fixing, re-testing, changes, and documentation; personnel should be able to complete the project without burning out.

• adequate testing - start testing early on, re-test after fixes or changes, plan for adequate time for testing and bug-fixing.

• stick to initial requirements as much as possible - be prepared to defend against changes and additions once development has begun, and be prepared to explain consequences. If changes are necessary, they should be adequately reflected in related schedule changes. If possible, use rapid prototyping during the design phase so that customers can see what to expect. This will provide them a higher comfort level with their requirements decisions and minimize changes later on.

• communication - require walkthroughs and inspections when appropriate; make extensive use of group communication tools - e-mail, groupware, networked bug-tracking tools and change management tools, intranet capabilities, etc.; insure that documentation is available and up-to-date - preferably electronic, not paper; promote teamwork and cooperation; use protoypes early on so that customers' expectations are clarified.

(See the Bookstore section's 'Software QA', 'Software Engineering', and 'Project Management' categories for useful books with more information.)

What is software 'quality'? Quality software is reasonably bug-free, delivered on time and within budget, meets requirements and/or expectations, and is maintainable. However, quality is obviously a subjective term. It will depend on who the 'customer' is and their overall influence in the scheme of things. A wide-angle view of the 'customers' of a software development project might include end-users, customer acceptance testers, customer contract officers, customer management, the development organization's management/accountants/testers/salespeople, future software maintenance engineers, stockholders, magazine columnists, etc. Each type of 'customer' will have their own slant on 'quality' - the accounting department might define quality in terms of profits while an end-user might define quality as user-friendly and bug-free. (See the Bookstore section's 'Software QA' category for useful books with more information.)

What is 'good code'? 'Good code' is code that works, is bug free, and is readable and maintainable. Some organizations have coding 'standards' that all developers are supposed to adhere to, but everyone has different ideas about what's best, or what is too many or too few rules. There are also various theories and metrics, such as McCabe Complexity

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page9 of 77

metrics. It should be kept in mind that excessive use of standards and rules can stifle productivity and creativity. 'Peer reviews', 'buddy checks' code analysis tools, etc. can be used to check for problems and enforce standards. For C and C++ coding, here are some typical ideas to consider in setting rules/standards; these may or may not apply to a particular situation:

• minimize or eliminate use of global variables. • use descriptive function and method names - use both upper and lower case,

avoid abbreviations, use as many characters as necessary to be adequately descriptive (use of more than 20 characters is not out of line); be consistent in naming conventions.

• use descriptive variable names - use both upper and lower case, avoid abbreviations, use as many characters as necessary to be adequately descriptive (use of more than 20 characters is not out of line); be consistent in naming conventions.

• function and method sizes should be minimized; less than 100 lines of code is good, less than 50 lines is preferable.

• function descriptions should be clearly spelled out in comments preceding a function's code.

• organize code for readability. • use whitespace generously - vertically and horizontally • each line of code should contain 70 characters max. • one code statement per line. • coding style should be consistent throught a program (eg, use of brackets,

indentations, naming conventions, etc.) • in adding comments, err on the side of too many rather than too few

comments; a common rule of thumb is that there should be at least as many lines of comments (including header blocks) as lines of code.

• no matter how small, an application should include documentaion of the overall program function and flow (even a few paragraphs is better than nothing); or if possible a separate flow chart and detailed program documentation.

• make extensive use of error handling procedures and status and error logging.

• for C++, to minimize complexity and increase maintainability, avoid too many levels of inheritance in class heirarchies (relative to the size and complexity of the application). Minimize use of multiple inheritance, and minimize use of operator overloading (note that the Java programming language eliminates multiple inheritance and operator overloading.)

• for C++, keep class methods small, less than 50 lines of code per method is preferable.

• for C++, make liberal use of exception handlers

What is 'good design'? 'Design' could refer to many things, but often refers to 'functional design' or 'internal design'. Good internal design is indicated by software code whose overall structure is clear, understandable, easily modifiable, and maintainable; is robust with sufficient error-handling and status logging capability; and works correctly when implemented. Good functional design is indicated by an application whose functionality can be traced back to customer and end-user requirements. (See further discussion of

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page10 of 77

functional and internal design in 'What's the big deal about requirements?' in FAQ #2.) For programs that have a user interface, it's often a good idea to assume that the end user will have little computer knowledge and may not read a user manual or even the on-line help; some common rules-of-thumb include:

• the program should act in a way that least surprises the user • it should always be evident to the user what can be done next and how to exit • the program shouldn't let the users do something stupid without warning

them.

What is SEI? CMM? ISO? IEEE? ANSI? Will it help?

• SEI = 'Software Engineering Institute' at Carnegie-Mellon University; initiated by the U.S. Defense Department to help improve software development processes.

• CMM = 'Capability Maturity Model', developed by the SEI. It's a model of 5 levels of organizational 'maturity' that determine effectiveness in delivering quality software. It is geared to large organizations such as large U.S. Defense Department contractors. However, many of the QA processes involved are appropriate to any organization, and if reasonably applied can be helpful. Organizations can receive CMM ratings by undergoing assessments by qualified auditors.

Level 1 - characterized by chaos, periodic panics, and heroic efforts required by individuals to successfully complete projects. Few if any processes in place; successes may not be repeatable.

Level 2 - software project tracking, requirements management, realistic planning, and configuration management processes are in place; successful practices can be repeated.

Level 3 - standard software development and maintenance processes are integrated throughout an organization; a Software Engineering Process Group is is in place to oversee software processes, and training programs are used to ensure understanding and compliance.

Level 4 - metrics are used to track productivity, processes, and products. Project performance is predictable, and quality is consistently high.

Level 5 - the focus is on continouous process improvement. The impact of new processes and technologies can be predicted and effectively implemented when required.

Perspective on CMM ratings: During 1997-2001, 1018 organizations were assessed. Of those, 27% were rated at Level 1, 39% at 2, 23% at 3, 6% at 4, and 5% at 5. (For ratings during the period 1992-96, 62% were at Level 1, 23% at 2, 13% at 3, 2% at 4, and

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page11 of 77

0.4% at 5.) The median size of organizations was 100 software engineering/maintenance personnel; 32% of organizations were U.S. federal contractors or agencies. For those rated at Level 1, the most problematical key process area was in Software Quality Assurance.

• ISO = 'International Organisation for Standardization' - The ISO 9001:2000 standard (which replaces the previous standard of 1994) concerns quality systems that are assessed by outside auditors, and it applies to many kinds of production and manufacturing organizations, not just software. It covers documentation, design, development, production, testing, installation, servicing, and other processes. The full set of standards consists of: (a)Q9001-2000 - Quality Management Systems: Requirements; (b)Q9000-2000 - Quality Management Systems: Fundamentals and Vocabulary; (c)Q9004-2000 - Quality Management Systems: Guidelines for Performance Improvements. To be ISO 9001 certified, a third-party auditor assesses an organization, and certification is typically good for about 3 years, after which a complete reassessment is required. Note that ISO certification does not necessarily indicate quality products - it indicates only that documented processes are followed. Also see http://www.iso.ch/ for the latest information. In the U.S. the standards can be purchased via the ASQ web site at http://e-standards.asq.org/

• IEEE = 'Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' - among other things, creates standards such as 'IEEE Standard for Software Test Documentation' (IEEE/ANSI Standard 829), 'IEEE Standard of Software Unit Testing (IEEE/ANSI Standard 1008), 'IEEE Standard for Software Quality Assurance Plans' (IEEE/ANSI Standard 730), and others.

• ANSI = 'American National Standards Institute', the primary industrial standards body in the U.S.; publishes some software-related standards in conjunction with the IEEE and ASQ (American Society for Quality).

• Other software development process assessment methods besides CMM and ISO 9000 include SPICE, Trillium, TickIT. and Bootstrap.

• See the 'Other Resources' section for further information available on the web.

What is the 'software life cycle'? The life cycle begins when an application is first conceived and ends when it is no longer in use. It includes aspects such as initial concept, requirements analysis, functional design, internal design, documentation planning, test planning, coding, document preparation, integration, testing, maintenance, updates, retesting, phase-out, and other aspects. (See the Bookstore section's 'Software QA', 'Software Engineering', and 'Project Management' categories for useful books with more information.)

Will automated testing tools make testing easier?

• Possibly. For small projects, the time needed to learn and implement them may not be worth it. For larger projects, or on-going long-term projects they can be valuable.

• A common type of automated tool is the 'record/playback' type. For example, a tester could click through all combinations of menu choices, dialog box

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page12 of 77

choices, buttons, etc. in an application GUI and have them 'recorded' and the results logged by a tool. The 'recording' is typically in the form of text based on a scripting language that is interpretable by the testing tool. If new buttons are added, or some underlying code in the application is changed, etc. the application can then be retested by just 'playing back' the 'recorded' actions, and comparing the logging results to check effects of the changes. The problem with such tools is that if there are continual changes to the system being tested, the 'recordings' may have to be changed so much that it becomes very time-consuming to continuously update the scripts. Additionally, interpretation of results (screens, data, logs, etc.) can be a difficult task. Note that there are record/playback tools for text-based interfaces also, and for all types of platforms.

• Other automated tools can include: • code analyzers - monitor code complexity, adherence to• standards, etc.•• coverage analyzers - these tools check which parts of the• code have been exercised by a test, and may• be oriented to code statement coverage,• condition coverage, path coverage, etc.•• memory analyzers - such as bounds-checkers and leak detectors.•• load/performance test tools - for testing client/server• and web applications under various load• levels.•• web test tools - to check that links are valid, HTML code• usage is correct, client-side and• server-side programs work, a web site's• interactions are secure.• • other tools - for test case management, documentation• management, bug reporting, and configuration• management.

See the 'Tools' section for test tool listings and the 'Web Tools' section for web site testing tools.

What makes a good test engineer?A good test engineer has a 'test to break' attitude, an ability to take the point of view of the customer, a strong desire for quality, and an attention to detail. Tact and diplomacy are useful in maintaining a cooperative relationship with developers, and an ability to communicate with both technical (developers) and non-technical (customers, management) people is useful. Previous software development experience can be helpful as it provides a deeper understanding of the software development process, gives the tester an appreciation for the developers' point of view, and reduce the learning curve in automated test tool programming. Judgment skills are needed to assess high-risk areas of an application on which to focus testing efforts when time is limited.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page13 of 77

What makes a good Software QA engineer? The same qualities a good tester has are useful for a QA engineer. Additionally, they must be able to understand the entire software development process and how it can fit into the business approach and goals of the organization. Communication skills and the ability to understand various sides of issues are important. In organizations in the early stages of implementing QA processes, patience and diplomacy are especially needed. An ability to find problems as well as to see 'what's missing' is important for inspections and reviews.

What makes a good QA or Test manager? A good QA, test, or QA/Test(combined) manager should:

• be familiar with the software development process • be able to maintain enthusiasm of their team and promote a positive

atmosphere, despite what is a somewhat 'negative' process (e.g., looking for or preventing problems)

• be able to promote teamwork to increase productivity • be able to promote cooperation between software, test, and QA engineers • have the diplomatic skills needed to promote improvements in QA processes • have the ability to withstand pressures and say 'no' to other managers when

quality is insufficient or QA processes are not being adhered to • have people judgement skills for hiring and keeping skilled personnel • be able to communicate with technical and non-technical people, engineers,

managers, and customers. • be able to run meetings and keep them focused

What's the role of documentation in QA? Critical. (Note that documentation can be electronic, not necessarily paper.) QA practices should be documented such that they are repeatable. Specifications, designs, business rules, inspection reports, configurations, code changes, test plans, test cases, bug reports, user manuals, etc. should all be documented. There should ideally be a system for easily finding and obtaining documents and determining what documentation will have a particular piece of information. Change management for documentation should be used if possible.

What's the big deal about 'requirements'? One of the most reliable methods of insuring problems, or failure, in a complex software project is to have poorly documented requirements specifications. Requirements are the details describing an application's externally-perceived functionality and properties. Requirements should be clear, complete, reasonably detailed, cohesive, attainable, and testable. A non-testable requirement would be, for example, 'user-friendly' (too subjective). A testable requirement would be something like 'the user must enter their previously-assigned password to access the application'. Determining and organizing requirements details in a useful and efficient way can be a difficult effort; different methods are available depending on the particular project. Many books are available that describe various approaches to this task. (See the Bookstore section's 'Software Requirements Engineering' category for books on Software Requirements.) Care should be taken to involve ALL of a project's significant 'customers' in the requirements process. 'Customers' could be in-house personnel or out, and could include end-users, customer acceptance testers, customer contract officers,

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page14 of 77

customer management, future software maintenance engineers, salespeople, etc. Anyone who could later derail the project if their expectations aren't met should be included if possible. Organizations vary considerably in their handling of requirements specifications. Ideally, the requirements are spelled out in a document with statements such as 'The product shall.....'. 'Design' specifications should not be confused with 'requirements'; design specifications should be traceable back to the requirements. In some organizations requirements may end up in high level project plans, functional specification documents, in design documents, or in other documents at various levels of detail. No matter what they are called, some type of documentation with detailed requirements will be needed by testers in order to properly plan and execute tests. Without such documentation, there will be no clear-cut way to determine if a software application is performing correctly.

What steps are needed to develop and run software tests? The following are some of the steps to consider:

• Obtain requirements, functional design, and internal design specifications and other necessary documents

• Obtain budget and schedule requirements • Determine project-related personnel and their responsibilities, reporting

requirements, required standards and processes (such as release processes, change processes, etc.)

• Identify application's higher-risk aspects, set priorities, and determine scope and limitations of tests

• Determine test approaches and methods - unit, integration, functional, system, load, usability tests, etc.

• Determine test environment requirements (hardware, software, communications, etc.)

• Determine test ware requirements (record/playback tools, coverage analyzers, test tracking, problem/bug tracking, etc.)

• Determine test input data requirements • Identify tasks, those responsible for tasks, and labor requirements • Set schedule estimates, timelines, milestones • Determine input equivalence classes, boundary value analyses, error classes • Prepare test plan document and have needed reviews/approvals • Write test cases • Have needed reviews/inspections/approvals of test cases • Prepare test environment and testware, obtain needed user

manuals/reference documents/configuration guides/installation guides, set up test tracking processes, set up logging and archiving processes, set up or obtain test input data

• Obtain and install software releases • Perform tests • Evaluate and report results • Track problems/bugs and fixes • Retest as needed • Maintain and update test plans, test cases, test environment, and testware

through life cycle

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page15 of 77

What's a 'test plan'? A software project test plan is a document that describes the objectives, scope, approach, and focus of a software testing effort. The process of preparing a test plan is a useful way to think through the efforts needed to validate the acceptability of a software product. The completed document will help people outside the test group understand the 'why' and 'how' of product validation. It should be thorough enough to be useful but not so thorough that no one outside the test group will read it. The following are some of the items that might be included in a test plan, depending on the particular project:

• Title • Identification of software including version/release numbers • Revision history of document including authors, dates, approvals • Table of Contents • Purpose of document, intended audience • Objective of testing effort • Software product overview • Relevant related document list, such as requirements, design documents,

other test plans, etc. • Relevant standards or legal requirements • Traceability requirements • Relevant naming conventions and identifier conventions • Overall software project organization and personnel/contact-

info/responsibilities • Test organization and personnel/contact-info/responsibilities • Assumptions and dependencies • Project risk analysis • Testing priorities and focus • Scope and limitations of testing • Test outline - a decomposition of the test approach by test type, feature,

functionality, process, system, module, etc. as applicable • Outline of data input equivalence classes, boundary value analysis, error

classes • Test environment - hardware, operating systems, other required software,

data configurations, interfaces to other systems • Test environment validity analysis - differences between the test and

production systems and their impact on test validity. • Test environment setup and configuration issues • Software migration processes • Software CM processes • Test data setup requirements • Database setup requirements • Outline of system-logging/error-logging/other capabilities, and tools such as

screen capture software, that will be used to help describe and report bugs • Discussion of any specialized software or hardware tools that will be used by

testers to help track the cause or source of bugs • Test automation - justification and overview • Test tools to be used, including versions, patches, etc. • Test script/test code maintenance processes and version control • Problem tracking and resolution - tools and processes

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page16 of 77

• Project test metrics to be used • Reporting requirements and testing deliverables • Software entrance and exit criteria • Initial sanity testing period and criteria • Test suspension and restart criteria • Personnel allocation • Personnel pre-training needs • Test site/location • Outside test organizations to be utilized and their purpose, responsibilties,

deliverables, contact persons, and coordination issues • Relevant proprietary, classified, security, and licensing issues. • Open issues • Appendix - glossary, acronyms, etc.

(See the Bookstore section's 'Software Testing' and 'Software QA' categories for useful books with more information.)

What's a 'test case'?

• A test case is a document that describes an input, action, or event and an expected response, to determine if a feature of an application is working correctly. A test case should contain particulars such as test case identifier, test case name, objective, test conditions/setup, input data requirements, steps, and expected results.

• Note that the process of developing test cases can help find problems in the requirements or design of an application, since it requires completely thinking through the operation of the application. For this reason, it's useful to prepare test cases early in the development cycle if possible.

What should be done after a bug is found? The bug needs to be communicated and assigned to developers that can fix it. After the problem is resolved, fixes should be re-tested, and determinations made regarding requirements for regression testing to check that fixes didn't create problems elsewhere. If a problem-tracking system is in place, it should encapsulate these processes. A variety of commercial problem-tracking/management software tools are available (see the 'Tools' section for web resources with listings of such tools). The following are items to consider in the tracking process:

• Complete information such that developers can understand the bug, get an idea of it's severity, and reproduce it if necessary.

• Bug identifier (number, ID, etc.) • Current bug status (e.g., 'Released for Retest', 'New', etc.) • The application name or identifier and version • The function, module, feature, object, screen, etc. where the bug occurred • Environment specifics, system, platform, relevant hardware specifics • Test case name/number/identifier • One-line bug description • Full bug description

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page17 of 77

• Description of steps needed to reproduce the bug if not covered by a test case or if the developer doesn't have easy access to the test case/test script/test tool

• Names and/or descriptions of file/data/messages/etc. used in test • File excerpts/error messages/log file excerpts/screen shots/test tool logs that

would be helpful in finding the cause of the problem • Severity estimate (a 5-level range such as 1-5 or 'critical'-to-'low' is common) • Was the bug reproducible? • Tester name • Test date • Bug reporting date • Name of developer/group/organization the problem is assigned to • Description of problem cause • Description of fix • Code section/file/module/class/method that was fixed • Date of fix • Application version that contains the fix • Tester responsible for retest • Retest date • Retest results • Regression testing requirements • Tester responsible for regression tests • Regression testing results

A reporting or tracking process should enable notification of appropriate personnel at various stages. For instance, testers need to know when retesting is needed, developers need to know when bugs are found and how to get the needed information, and reporting/summary capabilities are needed for managers.

What is 'configuration management'? Configuration management covers the processes used to control, coordinate, and track: code, requirements, documentation, problems, change requests, designs, tools/compilers/libraries/patches, changes made to them, and who makes the changes. (See the 'Tools' section for web resources with listings of configuration management tools. Also see the Bookstore section's 'Configuration Management' category for useful books with more information.)

What if the software is so buggy it can't really be tested at all? The best bet in this situation is for the testers to go through the process of reporting whatever bugs or blocking-type problems initially show up, with the focus being on critical bugs. Since this type of problem can severely affect schedules, and indicates deeper problems in the software development process (such as insufficient unit testing or insufficient integration testing, poor design, improper build or release procedures, etc.) managers should be notified, and provided with some documentation as evidence of the problem.

How can it be known when to stop testing? This can be difficult to determine. Many modern software applications are so complex, and run in such an interdependent environment, that complete testing can never be done. Common factors in deciding when to stop are:

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page18 of 77

• Deadlines (release deadlines, testing deadlines, etc.) • Test cases completed with certain percentage passed • Test budget depleted • Coverage of code/functionality/requirements reaches a specified point • Bug rate falls below a certain level • Beta or alpha testing period ends

What if there isn't enough time for thorough testing? Use risk analysis to determine where testing should be focused.Since it's rarely possible to test every possible aspect of an application, every possible combination of events, every dependency, or everything that could go wrong, risk analysis is appropriate to most software development projects. This requires judgement skills, common sense, and experience. (If warranted, formal methods are also available.) Considerations can include:

• Which functionality is most important to the project's intended purpose? • Which functionality is most visible to the user? • Which functionality has the largest safety impact? • Which functionality has the largest financial impact on users? • Which aspects of the application are most important to the customer? • Which aspects of the application can be tested early in the development

cycle? • Which parts of the code are most complex, and thus most subject to errors? • Which parts of the application were developed in rush or panic mode? • Which aspects of similar/related previous projects caused problems? • Which aspects of similar/related previous projects had large maintenance

expenses? • Which parts of the requirements and design are unclear or poorly thought

out? • What do the developers think are the highest-risk aspects of the application? • What kinds of problems would cause the worst publicity? • What kinds of problems would cause the most customer service complaints? • What kinds of tests could easily cover multiple functionalities? • Which tests will have the best high-risk-coverage to time-required ratio?

What if the project isn't big enough to justify extensive testing? Consider the impact of project errors, not the size of the project. However, if extensive testing is still not justified, risk analysis is again needed and the same considerations as described previously in 'What if there isn't enough time for thorough testing?' apply. The tester might then do ad hoc testing, or write up a limited test plan based on the risk analysis.

What can be done if requirements are changing continuously? A common problem and a major headache.

• Work with the project's stakeholders early on to understand how requirements might change so that alternate test plans and strategies can be worked out in advance, if possible.

• It's helpful if the application's initial design allows for some adaptability so that later changes do not require redoing the application from scratch.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page19 of 77

• If the code is well-commented and well-documented this makes changes easier for the developers.

• Use rapid prototyping whenever possible to help customers feel sure of their requirements and minimize changes.

• The project's initial schedule should allow for some extra time commensurate with the possibility of changes.

• Try to move new requirements to a 'Phase 2' version of an application, while using the original requirements for the 'Phase 1' version.

• Negotiate to allow only easily-implemented new requirements into the project, while moving more difficult new requirements into future versions of the application.

• Be sure that customers and management understand the scheduling impacts, inherent risks, and costs of significant requirements changes. Then let management or the customers (not the developers or testers) decide if the changes are warranted - after all, that's their job.

• Balance the effort put into setting up automated testing with the expected effort required to re-do them to deal with changes.

• Try to design some flexibility into automated test scripts. • Focus initial automated testing on application aspects that are most likely to

remain unchanged. • Devote appropriate effort to risk analysis of changes to minimize regression

testing needs. • Design some flexibility into test cases (this is not easily done; the best bet

might be to minimize the detail in the test cases, or set up only higher-level generic-type test plans)

• Focus less on detailed test plans and test cases and more on ad hoc testing (with an understanding of the added risk that this entails).

Also see What is Extreme Programming and what's it got to do with testing? elsewhere in the Softwareqatest.com FAQ.

What if the application has functionality that wasn't in the requirements? It may take serious effort to determine if an application has significant unexpected or hidden functionality, and it would indicate deeper problems in the software development process. If the functionality isn't necessary to the purpose of the application, it should be removed, as it may have unknown impacts or dependencies that were not taken into account by the designer or the customer. If not removed, design information will be needed to determine added testing needs or regression testing needs. Management should be made aware of any significant added risks as a result of the unexpected functionality. If the functionality only effects areas such as minor improvements in the user interface, for example, it may not be a significant risk.

How can Software QA processes be implemented without stifling productivity? By implementing QA processes slowly over time, using consensus to reach agreement on processes, and adjusting and experimenting as an organization grows and matures, productivity will be improved instead of stifled. Problem prevention will lessen the need for problem detection, panics and burn-out will decrease, and there will be improved focus and less wasted effort. At the same time, attempts should be made to keep processes simple and efficient, minimize paperwork, promote

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page20 of 77

computer-based processes and automated tracking and reporting, minimize time required in meetings, and promote training as part of the QA process. However, no one - especially talented technical types - likes rules or bureacracy, and in the short run things may slow down a bit. A typical scenario would be that more days of planning and development will be needed, but less time will be required for late-night bug-fixing and calming of irate customers. (See the Bookstore section's 'Software QA', 'Software Engineering', and 'Project Management' categories for useful books with more information.)

What if an organization is growing so fast that fixed QA processes are impossible? This is a common problem in the software industry, especially in new technology areas. There is no easy solution in this situation, other than:

• Hire good people • Management should 'ruthlessly prioritize' quality issues and maintain focus on

the customer • Everyone in the organization should be clear on what 'quality' means to the

customer

How does a client/server environment affect testing? Client/server applications can be quite complex due to the multiple dependencies among clients, data communications, hardware, and servers. Thus testing requirements can be extensive. When time is limited (as it usually is) the focus should be on integration and system testing. Additionally, load/stress/performance testing may be useful in determining client/server application limitations and capabilities. There are commercial tools to assist with such testing. (See the 'Tools' section for web resources with listings that include these kinds of test tools.)

How can World Wide Web sites be tested? Web sites are essentially client/server applications - with web servers and 'browser' clients. Consideration should be given to the interactions between html pages, TCP/IP communications, Internet connections, firewalls, applications that run in web pages (such as applets, javascript, plug-in applications), and applications that run on the server side (such as cgi scripts, database interfaces, logging applications, dynamic page generators, asp, etc.). Additionally, there are a wide variety of servers and browsers, various versions of each, small but sometimes significant differences between them, variations in connection speeds, rapidly changing technologies, and multiple standards and protocols. The end result is that testing for web sites can become a major ongoing effort. Other considerations might include:

• What are the expected loads on the server (e.g., number of hits per unit time?), and what kind of performance is required under such loads (such as web server response time, database query response times). What kinds of tools will be needed for performance testing (such as web load testing tools, other tools already in house that can be adapted, web robot downloading tools, etc.)?

• Who is the target audience? What kind of browsers will they be using? What kind of connection speeds will they by using? Are they intra- organization (thus with likely high connection speeds and similar browsers) or Internet-wide (thus with a wide variety of connection speeds and browser types)?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page21 of 77

• What kind of performance is expected on the client side (e.g., how fast should pages appear, how fast should animations, applets, etc. load and run)?

• Will down time for server and content maintenance/upgrades be allowed? how much?

• What kinds of security (firewalls, encryptions, passwords, etc.) will be required and what is it expected to do? How can it be tested?

• How reliable are the site's Internet connections required to be? And how does that affect backup system or redundant connection requirements and testing?

• What processes will be required to manage updates to the web site's content, and what are the requirements for maintaining, tracking, and controlling page content, graphics, links, etc.?

• Which HTML specification will be adhered to? How strictly? What variations will be allowed for targeted browsers?

• Will there be any standards or requirements for page appearance and/or graphics throughout a site or parts of a site??

• How will internal and external links be validated and updated? how often? • Can testing be done on the production system, or will a separate test system

be required? How are browser caching, variations in browser option settings, dial-up connection variabilities, and real-world internet 'traffic congestion' problems to be accounted for in testing?

• How extensive or customized are the server logging and reporting requirements; are they considered an integral part of the system and do they require testing?

• How are cgi programs, applets, javascripts, ActiveX components, etc. to be maintained, tracked, controlled, and tested?

Some sources of site security information include the Usenet newsgroup 'comp.security.announce' and links concerning web site security in the 'Other Resources' section. Some usability guidelines to consider - these are subjective and may or may not apply to a given situation (Note: more information on usability testing issues can be found in articles about web site usability in the 'Other Resources' section):

• Pages should be 3-5 screens max unless content is tightly focused on a single topic. If larger, provide internal links within the page.

• The page layouts and design elements should be consistent throughout a site, so that it's clear to the user that they're still within a site.

• Pages should be as browser-independent as possible, or pages should be provided or generated based on the browser-type.

• All pages should have links external to the page; there should be no dead-end pages.

• The page owner, revision date, and a link to a contact person or organization should be included on each page.

Many new web site test tools are appearing and more than 230 of them are listed in the 'Web Test Tools' section.

How is testing affected by object-oriented designs? Well-engineered object-oriented design can make it easier to trace from code to internal design to functional design to requirements. While there will be little affect on black box testing (where an understanding of the internal design of the

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page22 of 77

application is unnecessary), white-box testing can be oriented to the application's objects. If the application was well-designed this can simplify test design.

What is Extreme Programming and what's it got to do with testing? Extreme Programming (XP) is a software development approach for small teams on risk-prone projects with unstable requirements. It was created by Kent Beck who described the approach in his book 'Extreme Programming Explained' (See the Softwareqatest.com Books page.). Testing ('extreme testing') is a core aspect of Extreme Programming. Programmers are expected to write unit and functional test code first - before the application is developed. Test code is under source control along with the rest of the code. Customers are expected to be an integral part of the project team and to help develope scenarios for acceptance/black box testing. Acceptance tests are preferably automated, and are modified and rerun for each of the frequent development iterations. QA and test personnel are also required to be an integral part of the project team. Detailed requirements documentation is not used, and frequent re-scheduling, re-estimating, and re-prioritizing is expected. For more info see the XP-related listings in the Softwareqatest.com 'Other Resources' section.

Testing Terms

Test case is a document that describes input, action, or event and an expected response, to determine if a feature of an application is working correctly.Test plan is a document that describes the objectives, scope, approach, and focus of a software testing effort.The Test Strategy is a high-level document that details the approach QA will follow in testing the given product. It document deals with the type of tests to be performed, the level of coverage, the testing procedure, the test environment and the tools used and the extent of client’s involvement in the testing.Test Log is the test cases filled with the resultsTest Environment is the set up for performing the testingTest Data is the data to be used while testing. It is driven by boundary value analysis, equivalence partitioning (valid and invalid testing)MetricesRoot Cause Codes for each defect e.g. manual mistake, due to misunderstanding of specDefect Summary Every month Root cause code wiseDefect summary severity wise (Fatal, Major, Minor)Defect density = Number of defects / Size of projectReview effectiveness= No. of review defects / Total no. of defectsDefect age = Sum (Phase Detected - Phase Introduced) / Total no. of defectsBlack box testing - not based on any knowledge of internal design or code. Tests are based on requirements and functionality. White box testing - based on knowledge of the internal logic of an application's code. Tests are based on coverage of code statements, branches, paths, conditions. Unit testing - the most 'micro' scale of testing; to test particular functions or code modules. Typically done by the programmer and not by testers, as it requires detailed knowledge of the internal program design and code.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page23 of 77

Integration testing - testing of combined parts of an application to determine if they function together correctly. The 'parts' can be code modules, individual applications, client and server applications on a network, etc. Functional testing - black-box type testing geared to functional requirements of an application; this type of testing should be done by testers. System testing - black-box type testing that is based on overall requirements specifications; covers all combined parts of a system. Regression testing - re-testing after fixes or modifications of the software or its environment. It can be difficult to determine how much re-testing is needed, especially near the end of the development cycle. Automated testing tools can be especially useful for this type of testing. Acceptance testing - final testing based on specifications of the end-user or customer, or based on use by end-users/customers over some limited period of time. Load testing - testing an application under heavy loads, such as testing of a web site under a range of loads to determine at what point the system's response time degrades or fails. Stress testing - term often used interchangeably with 'load' and 'performance' testing. Also used to describe such tests as system functional testing while under unusually heavy loads, heavy repetition of certain actions or inputs, input of large numerical values, large complex queries to a database system, etc. Performance testing - term often used interchangeably with 'stress' and 'load' testing. Ideally 'performance' testing (and any other 'type' of testing) is defined in requirements documentation or QA or Test Plans. Performance testing is the testing performed based on certain criteria. It is to test for optimal performance.Recovery testing - testing how well a system recovers from crashes, hardware failures, or other catastrophic problems. Alpha testing - testing of an application when development is nearing completion; minor design changes may still be made as a result of such testing. Typically done by end-users or others, not by programmers or testers. Beta testing - testing when development and testing are essentially completed and final bugs and problems need to be found before final release. Typically done by end-users or others, not by programmers or testers. Sanity testing - typically an initial testing effort to determine if a new software version is performing well enough to accept it for a major testing effort. For example, if the new software is crashing systems every 5 minutes, bogging down systems to a crawl, or destroying databases, the software may not be in a 'sane' enough condition to warrant further testing in its current state.

Author: <Author Name>

Date: <revision date>

IndexIndex 23Revision History 28Introduction 28Goal of Project and Feature Team 28Primary Testing Concerns 28Primary Testing Focus 28References 28Personnel 28

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page24 of 77

Testing Schedule 28Feature History 29Features: 29Files and Modules: 29

Files List: 29 Registry, INI Settings: 29 Setup Procedures: 29 De-installation Procedures 29 Database Setup and Procedures 30 Network Domain/Topologies Configuration Procedures 30 Performance Monitoring Counters Setup And Configurations 30

Operational Issues 30 Backup 30 Recovery 30 Archiving 30 Monitoring 30 Operational Problem Escalation/Alert Methods 30

Scope of Test Cases 30Acceptance Criteria 30Key Feature Issues 30Test Approach 30

Design Validation 31 Data Validation 31 API Testing 31 Content Testing 31 Low-Resource Testing 31 Setup Testing 31 Modes and Runtime Options 31 Interoperability 31 Integration Testing 31 Compatibility: Clients 31 Compatibility: Servers 32 Beta Testing 32 Environment/System - General 32 Configuration 32 User Interface 32 Performance & Capacity Testing 32 Scalability 32 Stress Testing 33 Volume Testing 33 International Issues 33 Robustness 33 Error Testing 33 Usability 33 Accessibility 33 User Scenarios 34 Boundaries and Limits 34 Operational Issues 34

Backup................................................................................................................................................34Recovery.............................................................................................................................................34Archiving............................................................................................................................................34Monitoring..........................................................................................................................................34Upgrade...............................................................................................................................................34Migration............................................................................................................................................35

Special Code Profiling and Other Metrics 35Test Environment 35

Operating Systems 35 Networks 35 Hardware 35

Machines.............................................................................................................................................35Graphics Adapters...............................................................................................................................35Extended and Expanded Memory Boards..........................................................................................35Other Peripheral..................................................................................................................................35

Software 35Unique Testing Concerns For Specific Features 35Area Breakdown 36

Feature Name 36

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page25 of 77

Sub Feature One.................................................................................................................................36sub 1.1.............................................................................................................................................36sub 1.2.............................................................................................................................................38sub 1.3.............................................................................................................................................38

Sub Feature Two.................................................................................................................................38Sub Feature Three (etc.)......................................................................................................................38

Test Case Structure 38Spec Review Issues 39Test Tools 39Smoke Test (acceptance test, build verification, etc.) 39Automated Tests 39Manual Tests 39Regression Tests 39Bug Bashes 39Bug Reporting 39Plan Contingencies 40External Dependencies 40Headcount Requirements 40Product Support 40Testing Schedule 40Drop Procedures 40Release Procedures 40Alias/Newsgroups and Communication Channels 40Regular Meetings 40

Feature Team Meetings 40 Project Test Team Meetings 40 Feature Team Test Meetings 41

Decisions Making Procedures 41

Objective.........................................................................................................................................................41Scope...............................................................................................................................................................41

Applicable to all projects / products development. 41

Responsibility.................................................................................................................................................42_______________________________________________________________..........................................422.0 entry criteria:............................................................................................................................................423.0 inputs: .....................................................................................................................................................434.0 Procedure:................................................................................................................................................434.1 Metrics council........................................................................................................................................43

4.2 Metrics PLAN : 43 Changes to the Organisation Standard Software Process are tracked and analysed to assess their effects on Process Capability Baseline. Project Process Cabability Baseline should be revised through out the life cycle as appropriate. 46 Suitable corrective actions shall be initiated by the Project Leader in order to reduce the variance and effect of the corrective action shall be tracked in subsequent reviews. If the problem could not be resolved by PM/PL then the problems shall be escalated to the DH/FH and if a solution is not found in that stage than the same can be escalated to the senior management. 46 In addition to the above, SEPG shall also use the Metric Database to monitor and improve the existing methods. 46 Analysis of metrics will be done once in 3 months (or) on request from Senior management /PM/PL. The reports of analysis shall be maintained in the Process database after the approval of the Metrics Council and communicated to all . 46

4.9a Metrics functions Review : 46

5.00 OUTPUT:................................................................................................................................................47 Metrics Data, Project specific Metrics, SBU wise metrics, Organisation wide metrics 47

6.00 eXIT Criteria:..........................................................................................................................................47 Approved List of Metrics 47

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................482 Test Case Design Considerations.................................................................................................................48

2.1 Modularity 48 2.1.1 Invariance 49 2.1.2 Parameterization 49

2.2 Version Control 502.3 Maintainability 51

2.3.1 Documentation 52 2.3.2 Conventions 52 2.3.3 Version Control Scheme 52 2.3.4 Configuration Items for Version Control 53 2.3.5 External Dependencies 53

2.4 Portability 53

3 Our Experience............................................................................................................................................56

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page26 of 77

3.1 Modularity 583.2 Version Control 583.3 Maintainability 583.4 Portability 58

4 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................59Objective.........................................................................................................................................................61Unit Testing.....................................................................................................................................................62

Black Box Testing 62 Equivalence partitioning 62

Examples.............................................................................................................................................63 Boundary-Value Analysis 64 Error Guessing 65

White Box Testing 67 Desk Checking 67 Code Walkthrough 69

Integration Testing..........................................................................................................................................70Bottom-up Integration Testing 70Top-down Integration Testing 71

System Testing................................................................................................................................................71

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page27 of 77

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page28 of 77

Revision History

First Draft: <author> <date><brief description of changes>

Introduction

Single sentence describing the intent and purpose of the test plan. For example “This test plan addresses the test coverage for the XXX release of the BAR area of feature Foo”.

Goal of Project and Feature Team

Mission statement and goal of overall project team.Mission statement and goal of specific feature team.This section is used to set the stage for testing’s plans and goals in relation to the feature team and project’s goals.

Primary Testing Concerns

A statement of what the main critical concerns of the test plan are. An itemized list, or short paragraph will suffice.

Primary Testing Focus

A short statement of what items testing will focus on. The testing concerns above state what testing is worried about. Focus indicates more of a methodology - a statement of how those concerns will be addressed via focus.

References

• document name location• test plan test plan location• project specifications project spec location• feature specification feature spec location• development docs on feature dev doc location• bug database queries location for raid queries• test case database queries location for test case queries• schedule documents location for schedule documents• build release server location of build releases• source file tree location of source file tree• other related documents other locations

Personnel

Program Manager: name and emailDeveloper: name and emailTester: name and email

Testing Schedule

Break the testing down into phases (ex. Planning, Case Design, Unit & Component Tests, Integration Tests, Stabilization, Performance and Capacity Tuning, Full Pass and Shipping) - and make a rough schedule of sequence and dates. What tasks do

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page29 of 77

you plan on having done in what phases? This is a brief, high level summary - just to set expectation that certain components will be worked on at certain times - and to indicate that the plan is taking project schedule concerns into consideration.Include a pointer to more detailed feature and team schedules here.

Feature History

A history of how the feature was designed, and evolved, over time. It is a good idea to build this history up as test plans go. This gives a good feel for why the current release is focusing on what it has done. It also serves a good framework for where problems have been in the past.A paragraph or two is probably sufficient for each drop, indicating - original intent, feedback and successes, problems, resolutions, things learned from the release, major issues dealt with or discovered in the release.Basically, this section is a mini post-mortem. It is eventually finishes with a statement regarding the development of the specific version.It is often helpful to update this history at each milestone of a project.

Features:

This section gives a breakdown of the areas of the feature. It is often useful to include in this section a per area statement of testing’s thoughts. What type of testing is best used for each area? What is problematic about each area? Has this area had a problem in the past. Quick statements are all that is need in this list.NOTE: this is only here as a high level summary of the features. The real meat is in the area breakdown. This is a tad redundant in that respect...

Files and Modules:

Include in this section any files, modules and code that must be distributed on the machine, and where they would be located. Also include registry settings, INI settings, setup procedures, de-installation procedures, special database and utility setups, and any other relevant data.

♦ Files List:

filename purpose location on machine

♦ Registry, INI Settings:

setting1 purposeSetting1 possible valuessetting 2 purposeSetting 2 possible values

♦ Setup Procedures:

1. blah2. blah

♦ De-installation Procedures

1. blah2. blah

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page30 of 77

♦ Database Setup and Procedures

1. blah2. blah

♦ Network Domain/Topologies Configuration Procedures

1. blah2. blah

♦ Performance Monitoring Counters Setup And Configurations

Operational Issues

Is the program being monitored/maintained by an operational staff? Are there special problem escalation, or operational procedures for dealing with the feature/program/area?

♦ Backup

♦ Recovery

♦ Archiving

♦ Monitoring

♦ Operational Problem Escalation/Alert Methods

Scope of Test Cases

Statement regarding the degree and types of coverage the testing will involve. For example, will focus be placed on performance? How about client v.s. server issues? Is there a large class of testing coverage that will be intentionally overlooked or minimized? Will there be much unit and component testing? This is a big sweeping picture of the testing coverage - giving an overall statement of the testing scope.

Acceptance Criteria

How is “Good Enough To Ship” defined for the project? For the feature? What are the necessary performance, stability and bug find/fix rates to determine that the product is ready to ship?

Key Feature Issues

What are the top problems/issues that are recurring or remain open in this test plan? What problems remain unresolved?

Test Approach

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page31 of 77

♦ Design ValidationStatements regarding coverage of the feature design - including both specification and development documents. Will testing review design? Is design an issue on this release? How much concern does testing have regarding design, etc. etc..

♦ Data ValidationWhat types of data will require validation? What parts of the feature will use what types of data? What are the data types that test cases will address? Etc.

♦ API TestingWhat level of API testing will be performed? What is justification for taking this approach (only if none is being taken)?

♦ Content TestingIs your area/feature/product content based? What is the nature of the content? What strategies will be employed in your feature/area to address content related issues?

♦ Low-Resource TestingWhat resources does your feature use? Which are used most, and are most likely to cause problems? What tools/methods will be used in testing to cover low resource (memory, disk, etc.) issues?

♦ Setup TestingHow is your feature affected by setup? What are the necessary requirements for a successful setup of your feature? What is the testing approach that will be employed to confirm valid setup of the feature?

♦ Modes and Runtime OptionsWhat are the different run time modes the program can be in? Are there views that can be turned off and on? Controls that toggle visibility states? Are there options a user can set which will affect the run of the program? List here the different run time states and options the program has available. It may be worthwhile to indicate here which ones demonstrate a need for more testing focus.

♦ InteroperabilityHow will this product interact with other products? What level of knowledge does it need to have about other programs -- “good neighbor”, program cognizant, program interaction, fundamental system changes? What methods will be used to verify these capabilities?

♦ Integration TestingGo through each area in the product and determine how it might interact with other aspects of the project. Start with the ones that are obviously connected, but try every area to some degree. There may be subtle connections you do not think about until you start using the features together. The test cases created with this approach may duplicate the modes and objects approaches, but there are some areas which do not fit in those categories and might be missed if you do not check each area.

♦ Compatibility: Clients

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page32 of 77

Is your feature a server based component that interacts with clients? Is there a standard protocol that many clients are expected to use? How many and which clients are expected to use your feature? How will you approach testing client compatibility? Is your server suited to handle ill-behaved clients? Are there subtleties in the interpretation of standard protocols that might cause incompatibilities? Are there non-standard, but widely practiced use of your protocols that might cause incompatibilities?

♦ Compatibility: ServersIs your feature a client based component that interacts with servers? Is there a standard protocol supported by many servers that your client speaks? How many different servers will your client program need to support? How will you approach testing server compatibility? Is your client suited to handle ill-behaved or non-standard servers? Are there subtleties in the interpretation of standard protocols that might cause incompatibilities? Are there non-standard, but widely practiced use of protocols that might cause incompatibilities?

♦ Beta Testing

What is the beta schedule? What is the distribution scale of the beta? What is the entry criteria for beta? How is testing planning on utilizing the beta for feedback on this feature? What problems do you anticipate discovering in the beta? Who is coordinating the beta, and how?

♦ Environment/System - GeneralAre there issues regarding the environment, system, or platform that should get special attention in the test plan? What are the run time modes and options in the environment that may cause difference in the feature? List the components of critical concern here. Are there platform or system specific compliance issues that must be maintained?

♦ ConfigurationAre there configuration issues regarding hardware and software in the environment that may get special attention in the test plan? Some of the classical issues are machine and bios types, printers, modems, video cards and drivers, special or popular TSR’s, memory managers, networks, etc. List those types of configurations that will need special attention.

♦ User InterfaceList the items in the feature that explicitly require a user interface. Is the user interface designed such that a user will be able to use the feature satisfactorally? Which part of the user interface is most likely to have bugs? How will the interface testing be approached?

♦ Performance & Capacity TestingHow fast and how much can the feature do? Does it do enough fast enough? What testing methodology will be used to determine this information? What criterion will be used to indicate acceptable performance? If modifications of an existing product, what are the current metrics? What are the expected major bottlenecks and performance problem areas on this feature?

♦ Scalability

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page33 of 77

Is the ability to scale and expand this feature a major requirement? What parts of the feature are most likely to have scalability problems? What approach will testing use to define the scalability issues in the feature?

♦ Stress TestingHow does the feature do when pushed beyond its performance and capacity limits? How is its recovery? What is its breakpoint? What is the user experience when this occurs? What is the expected behavior when the client reaches stress levels? What testing methodology will be used to determine this information? What area is expected to have the most stress related problems?

♦ Volume TestingVolume testing differs from performance and stress testing in so much as it focuses on doing volumes of work in realistic environments, durations, and configurations. Run the software as expected user will - with certain other components running, or for so many hours, or with data sets of a certain size, or with certain expected number of repetitions.

♦ International IssuesConfirm localized functionality, that strings are localized and that code pages are mapped properly. Assure program works properly on localized builds, and that international settings in the program and environment do not break functionality. How is localization and internationalization being done on this project? List those parts of the feature that are most likely to be affected by localization. State methodology used to verify International sufficiency and localization.

♦ RobustnessHow stable is the code base? Does it break easily? Are there memory leaks? Are there portions of code prone to crash, save failure, or data corruption? How good is the program’s recovery when these problems occur? How is the user affected when the program behaves incorrectly? What is the testing approach to find these problem areas? What is the overall robustness goal and criteria?

♦ Error TestingHow does the program handle error conditions? List the possible error conditions. What testing methodology will be used to evoke and determine proper behavior for error conditions? What feedback mechanism is being given to the user, and is it sufficient? What criteria will be used to define sufficient error recovery?

♦ UsabilityWhat are the major usability issues on the feature? What is testing’s approach to discover more problems? What sorts of usability tests and studies have been performed, or will be performed? What is the usability goal and criteria for this feature?

♦ AccessibilityIs the feature designed in compliance with accessibility guidelines? Could a user with special accessibility requirements still be able to utilize this feature? What is the criteria for acceptance on accessibility issues on this feature? What is the testing approach to discover problems and issues? Are there particular parts of the feature that are more problematic than others?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page34 of 77

♦ User ScenariosWhat real world user activities are you going to try to mimic? What classes of users (i.e. secretaries, artist, writers, animators, construction worker, airline pilot, shoemaker, etc.) are expected to use this program, and doing which activities? How will you attempt to mimic these key scenarios? Are there special niche markets that your product is aimed at (intentionally or unintentionally) where mimic real user scenarios is critical?

♦ Boundaries and LimitsAre there particular boundaries and limits inherent in the feature or area that deserve special mention here? What is the testing methodology to discover problems handling these boundaries and limits?

♦ Operational IssuesIf your program is being deployed in a data center, or as part of a customer's operational facility, then testing must, in the very least, mimic the user scenario of performing basic operational tasks with the software.

BackupIdentify all files representing data and machine state, and indicate how those will be backed up. If it is imperative that service remain running, determine whether or not it is possible to backup the data and still keep services or code running.

RecoveryIf the program goes down, or must be shut down, are there steps and procedures that will restore program state and get the program or service operational again? Are there holes in this process that may make a service or state deficient? Are there holes that could provide loss of data. Mimic as many states of loss of services that are likely to happen, and go through the process of successfully restoring service.

ArchivingArchival is different from backup. Backup is when data is saved in order to restore service or program state. Archive is when data is saved for retrieval later. Most archival and backup systems piggy-back on each other's processes.Is archival of data going to be considered a crucial operational issue on your feature? If so, is it possible to archive the data without taking the service down? Is the data, once archived, readily accessible?

MonitoringDoes the service have adequate monitoring messages to indicate status, performance, or error conditions? When something goes wrong, are messages sufficient for operational staff to know what to do to restore proper functionality? Are the "hearbeat" counters that indicate whether or not the program or service is working? Attempt to mimic the scenario of an operational staff trying to keep a service up and running.

UpgradeDoes the customer likely have a previous version of your software, or some other software? Will they be performing an upgrade? Can the upgrade take place without interrupting service? Will anything be lost (functionality, state, data) in the upgrade? Does it take unreasonably long to upgrade the service?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page35 of 77

MigrationIs there data, script, code or other artifacts from previous versions that will need to be migrated to a new version? Testing should create an example of installation with an old version, and migrate that example to the new version, moving all data and scripts into the new format.List here all data files, formats, or code that would be affected by migration, the solution for migration, and how testing will approach each.

♦ Special Code Profiling and Other MetricsHow much focus will be placed on code coverage? What tools and methods will be used to measure the degree to which testing coverage is sufficiently addressing all of the code?

Test Environment

What are the requirements for the product? They should be reflected in the breadth of hardware configuration testing.

♦ Operating Systems

Identify all operating systems under which this product will run. Include version numbers if applicable.

♦ Networks

Identify all networks under which this product will run. include version numbers if applicable.

♦ Hardware

Identify the various hardware platforms and configurations.MachinesGraphics Adapters

This includes the requirements for single or dual monitors.Extended and Expanded Memory BoardsOther Peripheral

Peripherals include those necessary for testing such as CD-ROM, printers, modems, faxes, external hard drive, tape readers, etc.

♦ Software

Identify software included with the product or likely to be used in conjunction with this product. Software categories would include memory managers, extenders, some TSRs, related tools or products, or similar category products.

Unique Testing Concerns For Specific Features

List specific features which may require more attention than others, and describe how testing will approach these features. This is to serve as a sort of “hot list”.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page36 of 77

Area Breakdown

This is a detailed breakdown of the feature or area - and is best done in an outline format. It is useful as a tool later when building test cases. The outline of an area can go on quite long. Usually it starts with a menu breakdown, and then continues on with those features and functionalities not found on any menu in particular.

♦ Feature Name

Sub Feature Onesub 1.1Feature testing approach matrix: this will repeat for each subitem, including any class of testing relevant to any item. Put in NA if not applicable. Location of this matrix in the hierarchy determines scope. For example, data validation rules global to anything under Sub Feature One should go under “Sub Feature One”. Inheritance should be implied.Class Info Auto

?Man.?

Design ValidationData Validation Valid data & expected results

(e.g. “alphanumeric”)Invalid data & expected results (e.g. “no ‘;’, ‘/’ or ‘@’)How to validate?

API Testing What are the API’s exposed? What are the permutations of calling these API’s (order, specific args, etc.)?

Content Testing What content exercises this feature?What content does this feature produce, modify or manage?

Low-Resource Testing

What resource dimensions to test?What to do when resource is low?

Setup Testing What types of setups?How to confirm feature after a setup?

Modes & Runtime Options

What modes and runtime options does this have?What should be tested during these modes?What are expected results in different modes?

Interoperability What do we interoperate with? Do what action with it?

Integration Testing What do we integrate with? Do what action with it?

Compatibility: What clients? Doing what

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page37 of 77

Clients actions?Compatibility: Servers

What servers? Doing what actions?

Beta TestingEnvironment/System

What environmental issues apply to this? What to do to expose?

Configuration What environmental issues apply to this? What to do to expose?

User Interface What are the interface points? How to exercise them?

Performance What are the target performance dimensions?What will you do to exercise these?

Capacity What is the target capacity?What will you do to test this?

Scalability What is the target scale, and how?What will you do to test this?

Stress What dimensions do you plan on stressing? What is expectation? How will you stress it?

Volume Tests What actions will be included in volume tests?

International What are the international problems of this item?

Robustness What robustness (crashes, corruption, etc.) errors are anticipated? How will you look for them?

Error Testing What are the relevant error conditions that the program expects?What are the error situations you plan on simulating?

Usability What are the usability issues about this item?

Accessibility What are the accessibility issues about this item?

User Scenarios How would a user typically use this item?What tests will you do to simulate user scenarios?

Boundaries and Limits

What are the boundary conditions surrounding this item?What are the limits of this item?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page38 of 77

Max Values? Minimum Values?

Special Code Profiling and Other MetricsSchedule When?Code Paths and Sequences?

What are the different ways to invoke or activate this item? What are things you can do just before this item that are supposed to change the way it operates? What should NOT change the way it operates?

sub 1.2sub 1.3

Sub Feature TwoSub Feature Three (etc.)

Test Case Structure

Where will test cases be stored? What is the naming scheme? What is the organizing structure? How do test cases correlate to the test plan?

RECOMMENDED:The test case structure follows the area breakdown structure highlighted above. Test cases will be stored in the TCM database. TCM was chosen because it supports arbitrary depths of hierarchy, and because it SQL based - allowing a great deal of flexibility in reporting, database management, etc.

In TCM, the left pane holds the hierarchy, the right pane holds instances of test cases. The left pane will follow the hierarchy through all the levels of feature detail, and then add one more level to express test class types. For example, one might see the following hierarchy in the left pane:Word Editing Format Font Typeface Data Validation Errors Boundaries Limits Etc. Style Etc. Paragraph

Test cases can exist at any level, but it is recommend that they be entered at the terminal level of the hierarchy so that they can be easily associated with similar

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page39 of 77

classes of testing. When a given level is selected, the list of test cases associated with it is shown in the right pane.

This hierarchy allows one to avoid needing to follow numbering schemes (which are a pane to maintain and organized), allows you to express a test's location in the tree with a "item.item.item.item" naming convention, and allows one to determine to what degree different classes of tests are covered for each feature. It is recommended that if a class is being skipped that an explanatory entry be placed in the right pane justifying why tests of that class are not relevant.

The intent is to make this document drive the creation and evaluation of the test cases.

Spec Review Issues

Indicate location and method being used for reporting problems against the specification and design.

Test Tools

List whatever test tools will be used, or need to be written, and for what purpose. It is often best to point to an external location for more details, as tools usually require an entire plan and architectural summary of their own.

Smoke Test (acceptance test, build verification, etc.)

The smoke test determines whether or not the build is good enough to be submitted to testing. This section gives a statement of what the basic smoke test consists of, how it is design, and how it will be performed. A pointer to suite locations is helpful here too.

Automated Tests

What degree of automation will be used testing this area? What platform/tools will be used to write the automated tests? What will the automation focus on? Where are the automated tools, suites and sources checked in?

Manual Tests

What sorts of items will be tested manually rather than via automation? Why is manual testing being chosen over automation? Where are the manual tests defined and located?

Regression Tests

What is your general regression strategy? Are you going to automate? Where are the regressions stored? How often will they be re-run?

Bug Bashes

What is your strategy for bug bashes? How many? What goals? What incentives? What areas are targetted to be bashed? By who?

Bug Reporting

What tool(s) will be used to report bugs, and where are the bug reports located? Are there any special pieces of information regarding categorization of bugs that should be reported here (areas, keywords, etc.)?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page40 of 77

Plan Contingencies

Is there anything that may require testing’s plans to change? Briefly describe how you plan to react to those changes.

External Dependencies

Are there any groups or projects external to the team that are dependent on your feature, or that your feature is dependent on? What testing problems and issues does this create? How are deliverables from external groups going to be tested and confirmed with your own feature? Who are the individuals serving as primary contact and liaison in this relationship?

Headcount Requirements

How many people will it require to implement these plans? Are there currently enough people on staff right now? What effect will hiring more or less people have (slip in schedule, quality, or something else?).

Product Support

What aspects of this feature have been a problem for support in the past? How are those problems being addressed? What aspects of this feature will likely cause future support problems? How are those problems being resolved? What testing methodology is being used to prevent future support problems? How is information being sent to support regarding problems and functionality of the feature?

Testing Schedule

Break the testing down into phases (ex. Planning, Case Design, Unit & Component Tests, Integration Tests, Stabilization, Performance and Capacity Tuning, Full Pass and Shipping) - and make a rough schedule of sequence and dates. What tasks do you plan on having done in what phases? This is a brief, high level summary - just to set expectation that certain components will be worked on at certain times - and to indicate that the plan is taking project schedule concerns into consideration.Include a pointer to more detailed feature and team schedules here.

Drop Procedures

Define the methodology for handing off the code between Development and Testing.

Release Procedures

Describe the step-wise process for getting the product from the network testing version to ready-to-ship master diskette sets.

Alias/Newsgroups and Communication Channels

List any email aliases and what they are for. List any bulletin boards, newsgroups, or other communication procedures and methodologies here.

Regular Meetings

For each meeting, when, where, what is general agenda.

♦ Feature Team Meetings

♦ Project Test Team Meetings

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page41 of 77

♦ Feature Team Test Meetings

Decisions Making Procedures

Who reviews decision points for the following sorts of things: build approval, bug triage, feature sign off, test plan sign off, development design sign off? What is the process for the various decisions?

SQA Project Plan Outline SampleThis section provides a brief summary of the contents of a typical SQA plan. ThePSE/VIEWS guideline document for SQA plans provides a template for project-specificSQA Plans. Consult that document for detailed guidelines for preparing an SQA Plan.This section briefly describes the contents of a project-specific plan, namely thegoal and objectives of the SQA plan;identification of SQA activities and associated work breakdown to include:

—SQA engineer’s participation in establishing the software development plan,standards, and processes for the projects; and—reviews to be performed by SQA Engineer.Examples of SW activities and products to be reviewed includedeliverable and non-deliverable software products (operational and support);non-software products (e.g., documents);product development and product verification activities (e.g., executing test cases)

such as—standards and defined processes to be used as the basis for reviews;—documentation/products/reports that the SQA Engineer is required to produceincluding the method and frequency of providing feedback to softwareengineering & the SSC;resource requirements for SQA (including staff, tools, and facilities) and funding;

andschedule of the SQA activities.

Objective

This procedure deals with the method of measuring various activities in a software project to appraise the effectiveness of the process employed and to harness the calculated metrics to improve the performance. Metrics will be exclusively used only for process improvement and not on any individuals.

Scope

♦ Applicable to all projects / products development.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page42 of 77

Responsibility

Chair Person – Metrics Council :Responsible for periodic review of the metrics data collected and verification of actions initiated based on the review to improve the process.

Member – Metrics Council :

Responsible for identification and collection of metric data and documentation of the Metrics collected.

Quality Executive :

Responsible for analysing the data collected and

reporting the findings to the Chair person and other

members in the Metrics council for domain wise & organisation wise .

Project Manager / :

Project Leader Responsible for analysing the data collected and reporting the findings to the chair person and other

members in the metrics council for Project / Product wise metrics.

_______________________________________________________________

1.0 INTRODUCTION:

Metrics provides the information regarding the performance of a project/product and the data collected during different phases shall be used for managing the project and product development . The metrics collected for a project shall be

stored in the process / metrics database and shall also be used by the Project / Product development personnel for estimation.

2.0 entry criteria:

Initiation of a project or product and Progress of a Project / Product development through various phases.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page43 of 77

3.0 inputs:

Project Management Plan, WWR, Progress Review Reports, Review Reports, Test summary form, Project Closure Report

4.0 Procedure:

4.1 Metrics council

A Metrics Council constituting Project Managers/ Project Leaders representing all SBUs and the QAG, shall be formed by the Managing Director to perform the measurement and analysis function. The Chairperson of the Metrics Council shall also be appointed by the Managing Director . Metrics council is a part of SEPG.

TRAINING TO METRICS COUNCIL MEMBERS: The members of the Metrics council shall be trained in all related measurement functions like metrics capture , Function point analysis, metrics calculation ,analysis & baselining.

Refer for training activities, the procedure for Training & Development (Ref: CP/T&D.PRO/01.00)

4.2 Metrics PLAN :

Metrics Plan describes the Organisation’s goals for project/product quality, productivity, product development cycle schedule, effort, cost, size Measurement , Project Standard Software Process(PSSP), Data Capturing Method, Data Control Points and Process Control Points. Refer the Annexure Quality Assurance Plan

4.3 METRICS IDENTIFICATION :

A set of metrics are identified as per the annexure (CP/MET.MGL/**.**) which will form a base for improvement of the process. The measurement program is a part of the standard software development process. The phases are regrouped as given in the annexure (CP/MET.ANI/**.**) for meaningful analysis of the metrics.

♦Further the Project Leader can identify any other metrics that is suitable for the Project / Product Development other than the recommended one. The Project Leader shall provide the metrics collected to the Metrics Council for formal acceptance. Responsibilities of collection and analysis of metrics are given in

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page44 of 77

organisation responsibility (Refer PTL/QM/**.** ). For analysis the worksheet is provided in the annexure Metrics Collection & Computation Table

The metrics identified and approved for the project shall be documented in the Project Management Plan

4.4 INTIAL PROJECT/ PRODUCT ESTIMATES:

The Project Leader shall use the Past Project data stored in the Process database to estimate the size, effort, schedule, resource and cost for the current project. The Project Leader shall use data from similar projects and shall arrive at productivity factor in order to carry out the estimation. The estimate shall take into account other factors like skill available for the current project, schedule delivery date. before arriving at the estimate. The assumption made in assuming the productivity level after taking into account all the factors shall also be documented in the Project Management Plan Ref. No

4.5 ACTUAL DATA SOURCES:

The source of data for the metrics shall be from the following documents. The relevant data from these documents shall be collated to facilitate analysis. Other project documents can also be a source document based on the metrics needed.

• Weekly Working Report• Project Management Plan• Configuration Management Plan• Quality Assurance Plan• Defect Prevention Plan• Progress Review report• Review report• Defect Description• Defect Report• Test cases• Training Plan• Training feedback form• Training Effectiveness Record• Training Waiver Log• Customer Requirement Specification• Internal Quality Audit• Audit calendar• Configuration Status accounting

4.6 EFFORT CALCULATION :

The effort spent in a project shall be tracked from the Weekly Working Report, the format of which is in Annexure (CP/MET.WWR/**. **). The weekly working report shall be filled by all individuals who are engaged in software development. activity wise and the same shall be forwarded for analysis.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page45 of 77

The activity code given in the Annexure CP/MET.ACL/**. ** shall be used to fill up the Weekly Working Report. The guidelines for filling up the Weekly Working Report is in Annexure CP/MET.WGL/**. **.

4.7 SIZE CALCULATION :

Size is one of the important measure that is required to be calculated. The size of a project is the measure of the project functions and has a direct bearing on the effort that is required to be employed. The Project Leader shall estimate the initial size of the project at the start of the project based on the Contract Summary or Customer Requirement Specification.

The size measure for Business application shall be computed based on the guidelines given by the Annexure of Project Management Plan (Refer BSS/PMP.PMP/**.** & ES/***/ PMP.PMP/**.** ). A brief synopsis of the Function Point counting practice is given in the Function Points Counting Guidelines which can be used for estimating the size of the project in Function Points. Refer Document CP/MET.FPC/**.** for Function Points Counting Guidelines.

4.8 OTHER METRICS CALCULATIONS : The Project Leader shall identify the metrics that shall be calculated in the project and document the same in the Quality Assurance Plan. The metrics that are defined in the project shall be calculated based on the metrics guidelines provided in Annexure CP/MET.MGL/**.**.

Variances found at the time of services provided by the support service groups shall be documented in Service Level Metrics (CP/MET.SLM/02.00) which provides the details regarding the criticality of the problem and the level of efficiency.

4.9 METRICS DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

The Metrics Plan of Quality Assurance Plan shall identify the metrics to be calculated and shall also identify the periodicity of collection and the person responsible for collection of the data. The data after collection shall be complied in Metrics Collection and Computation Table ( CP/MET.MCC/**.**). The nature of the metrics shall determine the periodicity of calculation of the data. For example effort variance and schedule variance shall be tracked periodically while metrics like defect density or test effectiveness ratio can be computed only after completion of the specific activity. The Metrics are measured and the results are documented and displayed in Process Data Base.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page46 of 77

If a Project substantially different from a past project which is undertaken now, a new process baseline is established for that project as a part of tailoring the organisation’s standard software process.

Access control for metrics data will be handled by metrics council.

Organizational wide metrics will be formulated by SEPG and this will be used as baselines by projects.

♦ Changes to the Organisation Standard Software Process are tracked and analysed to assess their effects on Process Capability Baseline. Project Process Cabability Baseline should be revised through out the life cycle as appropriate.

S.No Description Responsible for Collection/ Analyse

Corrective Actions Monitoring / Baseline

1

2

3

Organisation Metrics

Department Wide Metrics

Project Level

Functional Head /Metrics Council

Department Head / Metrics Council

Project Manager / Project Leader/ Metrics Council

SEPG

Functional Head

Department Head

♦ Suitable corrective actions shall be initiated by the Project Leader in order to reduce the variance and effect of the corrective action shall be tracked in subsequent reviews. If the problem could not be resolved by PM/PL then the problems shall be escalated to the DH/FH and if a solution is not found in that stage than the same can be escalated to the senior management.

♦

♦ In addition to the above, SEPG shall also use the Metric Database to monitor and improve the existing methods.

♦ Analysis of metrics will be done once in 3 months (or) on request from Senior management /PM/PL. The reports of analysis shall be maintained in the Process database after the approval of the Metrics Council and communicated to all .

4.9a Metrics functions Review :

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page47 of 77

The members of the Metric Council shall meet periodically to oversee the function of the metrics council and shall initiate suitable actions to resolve problems if any. The review shall also cover the metrics collected, new metrics identified in any project, suitability of using the new metrics in other projects and identification and removal of any metrics that is found redundant in use. It will also be considered to remove any obsolete metrics. The activities of the metrics council shall be reviewed/audited by the Quality Assurance Group.

5.00 OUTPUT:

♦ Metrics Data, Project specific Metrics, SBU wise metrics, Organisation wide metrics

6.00 eXIT Criteria:

♦ Approved List of Metrics

Structured Test case Design

S. Vasant Abhishek Datta

Member of Technical Staff Member of Technical Staff

Cadence Design Systems Cadence Design Systems

ABSTRACT

A structured approach is required in practically all aspects of Software Testing. A

methodical approach to Test case design involves a degree of planning,

considerations of ease of execution and maintainability. The paper Structured Test

case Design focuses on the implementation and structure of the overall test

framework and how test cases should be designed. It also attempts to share the

experiences of the authors and what they consider to be the "best practices" that

have been identified in this domain. It addresses issues such as scalability,

modularity, version-control, robustness, portability and documentation of test cases.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page48 of 77

1 Introduction

Software today is getting more and more complex. The traditional ad hoc approach

to testing is rapidly being seen as neither efficient nor effective enough to handle this

increasing complexity. Scope

It does not discuss what the intent of a test case should be. A high-level picture of

the Test Case Design Process is shown in Fig 2. (See appendix) as a flowchart. We

will not elaborate on the process details and instead concentrate on the structural

aspects of test case design. It is observed however, that though the paper is not

process-centric, the process is integral to the test case design activity and familiarity

with it is assumed.

2 Test Case Design Considerations

This section discusses design aspects that should help in better structuring of test

cases.

2.1 Modularity

It should be understood while designing tests that the Application Under

Test (AUT) will undergo a series of radical changes and mysterious

transformations in the course of it's life cycle. Even if that does not appear to be the

case in the present it is a fair assumption to make of the future.

Changes in the AUT test environment, platform at all place considerable stress on a

test case unit to evolve and change correspondingly. Deciding on a modular design

can help reduce the angst of test maintenance.

So what is a modular test case design?

It is usually possible to break up a test case into component parts. One could do this

by asking questions of the kind:

• What is my test harness viz. the test execution framework?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page49 of 77

• What is my "golden" data?

• What are my test sources?

• What are the setup scripts, if any?

The answers to these questions should allow the test case operation to be broken up

into functionally distinct parts. The components are then analyzed for -

2.1.1 Invariance

Does a component of your test change across

• Other tests in the testsuite?

• Other platforms?

• With revisions in the functionality of the AUT?

The invariant parts will typically include those components that make up the test

harness e.g. tool setup and result verification tool(s).

2.1.2 Parameterization

To what degree is it possible to parameterize certain attributes of these components?

The benefits of doing the above analysis are manifold -

• Once it is known that certain components of a test case are invariant across the

testsuite then these can be collapsed into a common set and placed at a central

location. Those elements that have been deemed as parameters can be set at the

same central location. This greatly facilitates test maintenance.

• The parameterization of test case elements and abstraction of a common set of

test features 'forces' a consistent test case design. Test cases are typically added

in increments corresponding to the delta changes in the AUT over a period of

time, possibly by different individuals. It becomes important to have a consistent

test design to ease the understanding of the test case structure and debugging

test failures in regression testing. It is all very well to advocate a standard test

case design in Process Guideline Documents but it is generally seen that when

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page50 of 77

the overall test framework dictates a set of parameters for a test case to plug-in

and execute correctly then the test cases are created in much more consistent

manner.

• Characterizing the test case in terms of discrete functional units helps in

classifying which portions of the test case need to be under version control and

which don't. This is described in a subsequent section on Version Control.

• It is seen that designing in terms of parameterized modules increases the

overall scalability of the test-framework. Once the interfaces between the test-

harness and the tests are clear, it is easier to add new tests and change the test

harness itself without affecting the functioning of the existing tests.

However, there is a design decision that needs to be taken when extracting the

common set from multiple test cases. It is advantageous at times to have no

external dependencies in a test case. This makes for a more independent and flexible

test case but suffers on all the counts listed above. It is suggested that all external

dependencies should be centralized and well documented to minimize the trade-off.

2.2 Version Control

Any software product with a realistic life span undergoes a number of revisions. The

test-suites associated with the software are required to do the same. If one had to

support the past versions of the software, as most of us have to, this would require

maintaining multiple versions of the test-suites as well. However, the overhead of

maintaining multiple versions of testware can be minimized by placing the test

sources under version control.

Which components are to be placed under version control?

The snapshot of a generic test case during execution will typically have the

following components

• The Test Sources (Design Files, Source Files, Input vectors)

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page51 of 77

• The Golden Data (Expected Run Results, Output Vectors)

• The Test Environment Setup/ Execution scripts if any.

• Intermediate files/entities created during the test-run

Of the above elements, the first two must be under version control as these directly

characterize the evolution of the AUT over release cycles. The Test Environment

setup scripts should be placed under version control as well. This would allow one to

recreate the test environment for a particular release. The entities created/ modified

during a test run should not be checked in.

What are the benefits?

All the benefits that are traditionally associated with placing design sources under

version control can be obtained for testware as well. To enumerate a couple -

• Recreating the state of the test-suites corresponding to a particular version of the

AUT becomes trivial.

• Most version control software provide support for 'branch-and-merge'

development. This means that one could maintain a regression branch, which

would consist of tests that are considered stable and a development branch

where tests for new features of the AUT are created. The development branch

would be merged to the regression branch at a point where the AUT and

correspondingly the new tests are considered stable.

However, the key to placing test cases under version-control is the clean partitioning

of the test-sources from the intermediate files. This is where a modular approach to

test-design will help in the long-term.

2.3 Maintainability

It defines the ease with which the test cases could be maintained throughout the

lifecycle of the product across multiple platforms. Almost every software product

evolves continuously from its conception till its end of life. So the test cases will also

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page52 of 77

undergo changes to mirror the changes in the AUT. Maintainability, in other words,

means the ease with which the test case could be modified when the AUT changes in

course of its lifecycle. Structure of a test greatly determines its maintainability. Every

test case built on the lines listed in the modularity and version-control sections would

qualify as a well maintainable testsuite.

There are certain guidelines that should be adhered to during the test creation

phase, to make test cases easily maintainable -

2.3.1 Documentation

Maintaining an undocumented test case is a nightmare even for the creator of the

test case. The habit of documenting every component of both the test harness and

the individual test cases should be inculcated. At the very least, there should be a

"README" file explaining the intent of the test case. This file should have references

to the Test Plan document, as applicable. It is highly recommended to maintain a

revision history for every change that is made to the components of the test case(s).

This would help in tracking the problems to their sources.

2.3.2 Conventions

Test Engineers, involved in test case creation, should follow common conventions.

These could be -

a. File naming conventions b. Automation schemes

c. Version control schemes d. Test characterization schemes

e. Parameterization

2.3.3 Version Control Scheme

QualityAssurance processes require that regression testing be performed before any

software product is released to the customers. This would be possible only if

separate test case hierarchies are maintained for every version of the software.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page53 of 77

Maintaining multiple copies of the test case hierarchy is inefficient. A version control

system that provides support for multiple branches simplifies test case development

and maintenance. Each branch could be labeled on the basis of the version of the

software it tests. New tests added to address new functionality/ features in

subsequent releases of the software need be checked-in to the corresponding

branches only.

2.3.4 Configuration Items for Version Control

Any file that is created during the test run should not be "checked-in" to the Version

Control system. Typical examples are run logs and intermediate files. These

intermediate files are specific to that execution and should be removed after

completion of the test. The presence of these intermediate components in the

versioning system would hamper the regression testing (intermediate file formats

may change while the end result of the test is invariant). It also increases the

redundancy in the test repository. So we recommend that cleaning up of the test

case directory should be a part of the test run, preferably before and after the test

execution.

2.3.5 External Dependencies

There should be minimal external dependencies for any test case. By external

dependencies we mean any component of the test case or the test harness that lies

outside the test case repository e.g. references to data lying on the temporary

storage location/ references to remote-mounted resources.

2.4 Portability

It defines the ease with which the test cases could be ported to a new platform.

Usually the test creation effort is focussed on one platform. Later the test cases are

ported to work on other "supported" platforms. During the planning stage,

frequently, only the known platforms are considered. The real challenge is when the

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page54 of 77

support for new Operating Systems (OS) comes up in a subsequent release of the

software. If a modular approach is followed while creating tests, then porting to a

new platform becomes that much easier.

Modular test case design approach needs to be applied to partition the platform

specific and the platform independent components. This raises the questions -

• What are platform specific components?

The components of the test case that vary across different platforms are what we

term as platform specific components. Any component that interacts directly with the

OS, falls under the platform specific component list. The following are typically

platform specific-

• Setup scripts used for setting up the test environment

• Automation utilities

• Utilities that are employed for post processing and results verification

• Intermediate files created during the test execution

• What are platform independent components?

The components of the test cases that do not vary across different platforms are

what we term as platform independent components. It is primarily the data that is

used/ produced by the AUT, which is expected to be consistent across all supported

platforms. This could be -

a. Source files

b. Input vectors to the AUT

c. "Golden data" i.e. expected results & output vectors

• What is the benefit of this partitioning?

Benefits of partitioning the platform specific test case components are -

• Redundancy Removal

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page55 of 77

By partitioning out the platform specific components from the test case, we get a

subset of components, which could be used commonly across various platforms.

This avoids the redundancy of maintaining a separate test case hierarchy for each

platform.

• Scalability

We create placeholders for any platform specific data. Any platform specific data

identified in the partitioning process would go into these placeholders. In the

process, we make the test cases scalable for execution on any new platform that

a future version of the software may require.

Most of the portability issues could be avoided, if the following guidelines are

adhered to during the test case creation phase -

1. File naming conventions should be consistent across all platforms. Any platform

dependent file should be identifiable from its name i.e. file names could have a

suffix that reflects the platform on which it is dependent. Certain platforms, like

Windows NT, associate special meaning to the files based on their extensions.

Care needs to be taken while choosing a convention for naming the platform

independent files.

2. Test cases depend on scripts and automation utilities, which are generally

available on all platforms.

3. Environment settings should be parameterized and should require a "one point"

change while porting.

4. Test cases should be self-contained entities. There should be minimal external

path dependencies. Usage of hard coded paths to reference any external

dependencies should be avoided. Relative paths should be used if hard coding is

unavoidable.

Portability of the test cases across various platforms could be enhanced if the AUT

supports some in-built testability features. For example, if the AUT has an in-built

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page56 of 77

command language interface, this could be used to automate the test cases without

any platform specific dependencies.

The availability of the version control system software on various platforms affects

portability. Non availability of the version control system on a platform is a potential

threat to the test hierarchy maintenance on that platform. In such cases, a snapshot

of the test hierarchy could be made available outside the version control system. This

snapshot could be used for the testing on that platform. The snapshot test hierarchy

then needs to be manually maintained to keep the testsuites synchronized. This

approach is semi-automatic and prone to errors.

3 Our Experience

The Elements of the Structured Test case Design could be explained with an

example. The modular approach followed by the authors during the creation of test

cases for 'NC-Verilog Simulator' is presented in this section.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page57 of 77

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page58 of 77

The skeletal structure shown above (figure 1) depicts a broad picture of the NC-

Verilog (AUT) test hierarchy. Makefiles are used for automating the test cases.

3.1 Modularity

The common elements from the leaf-level test cases are abstracted out and placed at

the top level. The header files, which are common to every test case, are placed in

the "include" directory. Makefiles in the leaf-level test cases are parameterized to a

great extent. The parameters used in these Makefiles are defined in the

"Makefile_root" file in the top-level "etc/" directory.

3.2 Version Control

The "tests/" directory has the leaf-level test cases; "etc/", "include/" directories have

common test data that needs to be maintained for the entire life cycle of the AUT.

Even the "README" file and "exe/" directory, apart from the above mentioned

common test data, need to be under version control.

3.3 Maintainability

The "README" file at the top has the summary of the test hierarchy. It also discusses

how to set the environment for executing the test cases. The "README" files in leaf-

level test directories are used to describe the intent of the test cases. Revision

history of the changes made to any of the test components is maintained to make

tracking easier. The whole test hierarchy excluding the "scripts/" directory is

maintained under Clearcase Version Control System. The tests are available on

multiple branches with a unique branch corresponding to every AUT release. The

Branch and Merge features of Clearcase help us in maintaining these test cases

across multiple releases on four different platforms. Since the test components are

highly parameterized, any change that affects all the test cases could be

implemented by making the necessary change in the top level "Makefile_root" file.

3.4 Portability

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page59 of 77

When these test cases were created, NC-Verilog was only supported on Solaris, HP

and Windows platforms. We identified the platform specific data and moved that into

the "exe/" directory. There are platform specific Makefiles (suffixed with a unique

platform identifier), which would be used for executing the platform specific part of

the tests. When we were required to port the same test cases to Linux, it was easily

done by adding a Linux specific Makefile.

4 Conclusions

Our experience with this approach to Structured Test case Design has been very

positive. This approach facilitates test development, execution and maintenance. It

allows the Test Engineer to create new tests much faster. The Test Engineer can

focus more on what to test rather than worry about implementation details.

Uniformity in test structure allows automation of tests. It also helps when test cases

designed by one person have to be maintained by another. These factors contribute

to reduced cycle times in test development and maintenance, thereby increasing the

productivity of the test team overall.

Table of Contents

Index 23Revision History 28Introduction 28Goal of Project and Feature Team 28Primary Testing Concerns 28Primary Testing Focus 28References 28Personnel 28Testing Schedule 28Feature History 29Features: 29Files and Modules: 29

Files List: 29 Registry, INI Settings: 29 Setup Procedures: 29 De-installation Procedures 29 Database Setup and Procedures 30 Network Domain/Topologies Configuration Procedures 30 Performance Monitoring Counters Setup And Configurations 30

Operational Issues 30 Backup 30 Recovery 30 Archiving 30

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page60 of 77

Monitoring 30 Operational Problem Escalation/Alert Methods 30

Scope of Test Cases 30Acceptance Criteria 30Key Feature Issues 30Test Approach 30

Design Validation 31 Data Validation 31 API Testing 31 Content Testing 31 Low-Resource Testing 31 Setup Testing 31 Modes and Runtime Options 31 Interoperability 31 Integration Testing 31 Compatibility: Clients 31 Compatibility: Servers 32 Beta Testing 32 Environment/System - General 32 Configuration 32 User Interface 32 Performance & Capacity Testing 32 Scalability 32 Stress Testing 33 Volume Testing 33 International Issues 33 Robustness 33 Error Testing 33 Usability 33 Accessibility 33 User Scenarios 34 Boundaries and Limits 34 Operational Issues 34 Special Code Profiling and Other Metrics 35

Test Environment 35 Operating Systems 35 Networks 35 Hardware 35 Software 35

Unique Testing Concerns For Specific Features 35Area Breakdown 36

Feature Name 36 Test Case Structure 38Spec Review Issues 39Test Tools 39Smoke Test (acceptance test, build verification, etc.) 39Automated Tests 39Manual Tests 39Regression Tests 39Bug Bashes 39Bug Reporting 39Plan Contingencies 40External Dependencies 40Headcount Requirements 40Product Support 40Testing Schedule 40Drop Procedures 40Release Procedures 40Alias/Newsgroups and Communication Channels 40Regular Meetings 40

Feature Team Meetings 40 Project Test Team Meetings 40 Feature Team Test Meetings 41

Decisions Making Procedures 41

Objective.........................................................................................................................................................41Scope...............................................................................................................................................................41

Applicable to all projects / products development. 41

Responsibility.................................................................................................................................................42_______________________________________________________________..........................................42

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page61 of 77

2.0 entry criteria:............................................................................................................................................423.0 inputs: .....................................................................................................................................................434.0 Procedure:................................................................................................................................................434.1 Metrics council........................................................................................................................................43

4.2 Metrics PLAN : 43 Changes to the Organisation Standard Software Process are tracked and analysed to assess their effects on Process Capability Baseline. Project Process Cabability Baseline should be revised through out the life cycle as appropriate. 46 Suitable corrective actions shall be initiated by the Project Leader in order to reduce the variance and effect of the corrective action shall be tracked in subsequent reviews. If the problem could not be resolved by PM/PL then the problems shall be escalated to the DH/FH and if a solution is not found in that stage than the same can be escalated to the senior management. 46 In addition to the above, SEPG shall also use the Metric Database to monitor and improve the existing methods. 46 Analysis of metrics will be done once in 3 months (or) on request from Senior management /PM/PL. The reports of analysis shall be maintained in the Process database after the approval of the Metrics Council and communicated to all . 46

4.9a Metrics functions Review : 46

5.00 OUTPUT:................................................................................................................................................47 Metrics Data, Project specific Metrics, SBU wise metrics, Organisation wide metrics 47

6.00 eXIT Criteria:..........................................................................................................................................47 Approved List of Metrics 47

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................482 Test Case Design Considerations.................................................................................................................48

2.1 Modularity 48 2.1.1 Invariance 49 2.1.2 Parameterization 49

2.2 Version Control 502.3 Maintainability 51

2.3.1 Documentation 52 2.3.2 Conventions 52 2.3.3 Version Control Scheme 52 2.3.4 Configuration Items for Version Control 53 2.3.5 External Dependencies 53

2.4 Portability 53

3 Our Experience............................................................................................................................................563.1 Modularity 583.2 Version Control 583.3 Maintainability 583.4 Portability 58

4 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................59Objective.........................................................................................................................................................61Unit Testing.....................................................................................................................................................62

Black Box Testing 62 Equivalence partitioning 62 Boundary-Value Analysis 64 Error Guessing 65

White Box Testing 67 Desk Checking 67 Code Walkthrough 69

Integration Testing..........................................................................................................................................70Bottom-up Integration Testing 70Top-down Integration Testing 71

System Testing................................................................................................................................................71

ObjectiveAspire follows a rigorous testing methodology encompassing Unit, Integration, and System testing. Where applicable, other testing methods including load and stress testing might form part of the test suite.

The purpose of this document is to provide an overview on how to design effective test cases for black box testing and perform effective code verification for white box testing. This document also provides inputs on designing Integration and System Test Cases.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page62 of 77

Unit TestingUnit Testing is the testing of individual components (units) of the software. Unit testing is usually conducted as part of a combined code and unit test phase of the software life cycle.

Unit testing is the lowest level of testing performed during software development where individual units of software are tested in isolation from other parts of a program. Unit testing will be done after coding for that particular unit is completed.

The unit test cases shall be designed to test the validity of the program's correctness. Unit testing is a part of validation testing and we are approaching it in two ways, viz:

• Black Box Testing

• White Box Testing

Black Box Testing

Black box testing techniques focus on the functional requirements of the software. The objective of black box testing is to find errors in incorrect or missing functions, interfaces, data structure or external database access, performance and during initiation and termination. Black Box tests are designed to ensure / determine functional validity, system sensitiveness to certain input values and effect of specific combination of data on system operation.

Test cases for Black Box Testing can be written based on the following techniques:

1. Equivalence partitioning - Equivalence partitioning is a black box testing method that divides the input domain of a program into classes of data from which test cases can be derived.

2. Boundary-value analysis - Boundary value analysis is a method requiring test cases be generated which are on and immediately around the boundary of the input and output for a given piece of software.

3. Error guessing.

♦ Equivalence partitioning

Equivalence partitioning is a technique for determining which classes of input data have common properties. A program should behave in a comparable way for all members of an equivalence partition.

The equivalence partition may be identified by using the functional specification or user documentation and by the tester using experience to predict which classes of input value are likely to detect errors.

For example, if an input specification states that the range of some input values must be a 5-digit integer, which is between 10,000 and 99,999, equivalence partitions might be:

• Values < 10,000

• Values between 10,000 and 99,999

• Values > 99,999.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page63 of 77

Similarly, if four to eight values are to be input, equivalence partitions are less than four, between four and eight and more than eight.

There are two distinct steps. The first is to identify the equivalence classes and the second is to identify the test cases.

Identifying the equivalence classes can be done in a table as follows:

External Input Condition

Valid Equivalence Classes

Invalid Equivalence Classes

• If valid input is a range of values, there is a minimum of three equivalence classes: one below the range, one within the range, and one above the range.

• If valid input is a value from a discrete set of values, there are two equivalence classes: one consisting of valid, discrete values, and another consisting of any other input values.

• If an input condition requires a specific value, one valid and two invalid equivalence classes are defined.

• If an input condition is Boolean, one valid and one invalid class are defined.

Test cases can be written based on the conditions stated in the above table. Test cases should be written following the Test Case Template format.

1. Assign a unique number to each Equivalence Class (EC).

2. Until all valid ECs have been covered by test cases, write new test case covering as many of the uncovered ECs as possible.

3. Until all invalid ECs have been covered by test cases, write a test case that covers one, and only one, of the uncovered invalid ECs.

4. If multiple invalid ECs are tested in the same test case, some of those tests may never be executed because the first test may mask other tests or terminate execution of the test case.

Examples1. If the input specifies a range of valid values, define one valid EC (within

the range) and two invalid ECs (one outside each end of the range).

• Example: If the input requires a month in the range of 1-12 months, define one valid EC for months 1 though 12 and two invalid ECs (month <1 and month >12)

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page64 of 77

2. If the input specifies the number (N) of valid values, define one valid EC and two invalid ECs (none, and more than N).

• Example: If the input requires the titles of at least three but no more eight books, then define one valid EC and two invalid ECs (<3 and >8 books).

3. If the input specifies a set of valid values, define one valid EC (within the set) and one invalid EC (outside the set).

• Example: If the input requires one of the names TOM, DICK, or HARRY, then define one valid EC (using one of the valid names) and one invalid EC (using the name JOE)

4. If there is reason to believe that the program handles each valid input differently, then define one valid EC per valid input.

5. If the input specifies a “must be” situation, define one valid EC and once invalid EC.

• Example: If the first character of the input must be numeric, then define one valid EC where the first character is a number and one invalid EC where the first character is not a number.

6. If there is reason to believe that elements are an EC are not handled in an identical manner by the program, subdivide the EC into smaller.

7. Individual Functions and procedures are tested including the logical paths.

♦ Boundary-Value Analysis

Boundary Value Analysis (BVA) is choosing test cases at or near the boundaries of equivalence classes. It is a test data selection technique in which values are chosen to lie along data extremes. Boundary values include maximum, minimum, just inside/outside boundaries, typical values, and error values. The hope is that if systems work correctly for these special values then it will work correctly for all values in between.

Equivalence classes together with boundary value analysis to test both input specifications and output specifications.

• Leads to a selection of test cases that exercise bounding values

• For example, if an input condition specifies a range bounded by values a and b, test case should be designed with values a and b, just above and just below a and b respectively.

• Test cases that explore the boundary conditions of a program have a higher payoff (i.e. detect max. # of errors from min. # of tests).

• Boundary conditions – those directly on, above and beneath the edges of a program’s valid equivalence classes.

• BVA differs from EP in two respects

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page65 of 77

• EP selects any one element of an input domain’s valid equivalence class as being representative of that class. BVA requires a number of elements to be selected around the edges.

• EP focuses on the input domain conditions only, whereas, BVA also considers a program’s output domain and devises test cases around examining its equivalence classes. (Normal input can often produce abnormal output).

• It is similar to equivalence testing except that covers output values and rather than selecting any element in an equivalence class as being representative, it requires that they are selected near edges (boundaries).

Boundary-value analysis is a variant and refinement of equivalence partitioning, with two major differences:

• First rather than selecting any element in an equivalence class as being representative, elements are selected such that each edge of the EC is the subject of a test. Boundaries are always a good place to look for defects.

• Second rather than focusing exclusively on input conditions, output conditions are also explored by defining output ECs. What can be output? What are the classes of output? What should I create as an output to force a useful set of classes that represent the outputs that ought to be produced?

The guidelines for boundary-value analysis are:

• If an input specifies a range of valid values, write test cases for the ends of the range and invalid-input test cases for conditions just beyond the ends.

• Example: If the input requires a real number in the range of 0.0 and 90.0 degrees, then write test cases for 0.0, 90.0m –0.001, and 90.001.

• If an input specifies a number of valid values, write test cases for the minimum and maximum number of values and one beneath and beyond these values.

• Example: If the input requires the titles of at least 3, but no more than 8, books, then write test cases for 2,3,8, and 9 books.

• Example : In 1994, minimum Social Security (FICA) deduction from any one pay check was $0.00, and the maximum was $3571.20

Test cases must include input data, which should result in deductions of exactly $0.00 and exactly $3571.20

Also, test data that might result in deductions of less than $0.00 or more than $3571.20.

♦ Error Guessing

Error Guessing is the process of using intuition and past experience to fill in gaps in the test data set. There are no rules to follow. The tester must review the test records with an eye towards recognizing missing conditions. The basic idea is to

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page66 of 77

make a list of possible errors and then develop tests based on the list. There is a high probability that defects that have been there in the past are the kinds that are going to be there in the future.

Some items to try are:

• Empty or null lists / strings

• Zero instances / occurrences

• Blanks or null characters in strings

• Referential Integrity

• Negative values

• Redundancy

• Non-Existence files

• Alphanumeric in Numeric fields, Numeric in Alpha numeric field

• Shortcut Keys

• Validity period

• Field level restriction – Edit mode

• Field level restriction – View mode

• Field level restriction – Delete mode

• Record level restriction

• Lead spaces check

• Backspaces check

• Wild card characters check

• Field width

• External database / file access errors

• Performance errors

• Initialization / termination errors

• Interface errors

Other cases where experience has demonstrated error proneness are the processing of variable length tables, calculation of median values for odd and even numbered populations, cyclic master file/database updates (improper handling of duplicate keys, unmatched keys, etc.), overlapping storage areas, overwriting of buffers, forgetting to initialize buffer areas, and so forth. There are plenty of

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page67 of 77

circumstances unique to your hardware/software environments and use of specific programming languages.

White Box Testing

White-box testing should check every line of code. White box testing is testing from the inside--tests that go in and test the actual program structure. Once white box testing is started, there are a number of techniques to ensure the internal parts of the system are being adequately tested and that there is sufficient logic coverage.

• Basis path testing: Very simply, test every statement in the program at least once. Choose tests that cover the entire execution tree. Basis path testing is MANDATORY.

• Profiling: There are a lot of tools--often included with compilers--which show where the CPU is spending most of its time in a program. Naturally, the busiest parts of the program are the ones you want to test most.

• Loop tests: Exercise each DO, WHILE, FOR, and other repeating statements several times.

• Input tests: As the old saying goes--garbage in, garbage out. If a procedure receives the wrong data, it's not going to work. Each procedure should be tested to make certain that the procedure actually received the data you sent to it. This will spot type mismatches, bad pointers, and other such bugs (these are common!)

• Statement coverage

• Decision coverage

• Condition coverage

We recommend two methods for white-box testing:

• Desk checking

• Code walkthrough

Where possible, both methods should be followed by the developer.

♦ Desk Checking

Person(s) Responsible

• The developer who has developed the code

Required documents

• Coding Standard

• Flow chart of the code. This document is named pseudocode.

• List of variables used in the particular code.

• List of Equivalence classes (range of acceptable and non acceptable values) for each variable to be tested for.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page68 of 77

• List of the linear sequence paths in the flow chart that should be executed. This document is called path list.

• Guidelines for the particular platform, database guidelines.

• Source code.

Testing norms

• All paths in the path lists should be executed at least once.

• Any bugs should be recorded and fixed later and not during the testing.

• Error should be recorded in the error record.

Procedure for Desk Checking

The code should be tested and recorded with the help of documents mentioned above and confirm that:

• All coding standards are followed properly

• No uninitialized variable is used

• Subscripts are not out of bounds

• No integer subscripts are not used

• Un-initialized reference variables are not used

• Function or procedure call and definition should match, in terms of the number of parameters and their types

• In a function the input only arguments are not altered

• The function return types are in match with the function definition

• String limits are not exceeded

• Arrays and strings are initialized properly

• Variable declarations are not duplicated

• Each variable holds the range of values that is specified to hold (This is done with the help of equivalence classes for the particular variable)

• Arithmetic computations are performed only on arithmetic variables

• Mixed mode computations are properly used (Like usage of + for both addition and concatenation)

• Computations of variables of different length should follow standards

• Target size should not be lesser than the assigned value size

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page69 of 77

• There is no overflow or underflow in the intermediate results.

• Division by zero is eliminated

• Operator precedence are properly taken care

• Integer divisions are correct

• Comparison relationships are correct

• Boolean expressions are correct

• Expressions are not too difficult to understand.

• All loops are properly terminated

• The program is properly terminated.

• All object references are properly destroyed.

• Each route calls the appropriate function.

• Possible loop fall through are correct.

• All the necessary logic and functions are present.

• The function performs what it is intended to do.

• Non-exhaustive decisions are not present.

• Expressions in a case statement are within bounds.

• Global variable definitions are consistent across modules.

• The code is thoroughly commented and consistent with other modules

• The guidelines for the particular platform should be followed.

• All database guidelines should be followed.

♦ Code Walkthrough

Person(s) Responsible

• Should contain 3 to 6 individuals

• The developer who has developed the code

• Representative of software quality assurance group

• At least one person responsible for drawing up the specification

Required documents

• Coding Standard

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page70 of 77

• Flow chart of the code

• Source code

Testing Norms

• The materials and documents for the walk through should be distributed to the participants in advance for careful preparation

• The process should not exceed 2 hours

• The bugs and suggestions should be recorded and should be fixed later

Procedure for Code Walkthrough

• Each participant should study the material and come up with two lists, a list he or she does not understand and

• Another list of items that the reviewer believes are incorrect.

• A person should head the team and all the participants should review the source code and the flow chart, line by line and make comments on style, possible errors, violation of standards, performance issues etc. with the help of their existing lists and the source code itself.

• These comments should be recorded and reasonable suggestions are taken and fixed later by the developer.

Integration TestingIntegration testing is a process of testing the system as a whole; the test is carried out after the testing of individual units to ensure that they can all together. The primary objective of Integration testing is to discover errors in the interfaces between the units.

Integration testing focuses on finding errors due to interaction of units. Since the structure of interacting units is so complex, it is important to take advantage of the fact that each unit has already been tested, and abstract away its structure. In addition, it is important to work at different levels of abstraction. Integration should start with small groups of units; when they have been tested, the structure of the groups is abstracted away, and more units are integrated into the groups; the process proceeds until all units are integrated into one large group.

Integration testing can be performed on several levels. We can integrate and test the various units of a program, the programs of a sub-system, the subsystems of a system, the systems of a network, and so on. Integration testing can proceed in a number of different ways, which can be broadly characterized as top down or bottom up. In practice a combination of top-down and bottom-up testing would be used.

Bottom-up Integration Testing

Bottom up integration testing is where an individual unit is tested from a test harness. Once a set of individual units have been tested they are then combined into a collection of units, known as builds, which are then tested by a second test harness. This process can continue until the build consists of the entire application.

The steps in bottom-up integration are:

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page71 of 77

• Begin with the terminal units (those do not call other units) of the hierarchy.

• A driver unit is produced for every unit.

• The next unit to be tested is any unit whose subordinate units (the units it calls) have all been tested.

• After a unit has been tested, its driver is replaced by an actual unit (the next one to be tested) and its driver.

Top-down Integration Testing

Top down testing can proceed in a depth-first or a breadth-first manner. For depth-first integration each unit is tested in increasing detail, replacing more and more levels of detail with actual code rather than stubs. Alternatively breadth-first would proceed by refining all the units at the same level of control throughout the application. In practice a combination of the two techniques would be used. At the initial stages all the units might be only partly functional, possibly being implemented only to deal with non-erroneous data. These would be tested in breadth-first manner, but over a period of time each would be replaced with successive refinements, which were closer to the full functionality. This allows depth-first testing of a unit to be performed simultaneously with breadth-first testing of all the units.

The steps in top-down integration are:

• Begin with the top unit in the execution hierarchy.

• Stub units are produced, and some may require multiple versions.

• Stubs are often more complicated than they first appear.

• The next unit to be tested is any module with at least one previously tested super ordinate (calling) unit.

• After a unit has been tested, one of its stubs is replaced by an actual unit (the next one to be tested) and its required stubs.

System TestingThe purpose of system testing is to verify that the software being developed conforms to the specifications. System Testing can begin whenever the product has sufficient functionality to execute some of the tests or after unit and integration testing are completed. Because the tests usually depend on functional interfaces, it may be wise to delay system testing until some pre-defined level of functionality and reliability in the software is achieved.

The steps of System Testing are:

• Decompose and analyze the requirements specification.

• Partition the requirements into logical categories and, for each component, make a list of detailed requirements.

• For each relevant requirement, determine inputs and outputs. Develop the requirements test cases.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page72 of 77

• Develop a requirements coverage matrix which is simply a table in which an entry describes a specific subtest that adds value to the requirements coverage, the priority of that subtest, the specific test cases in which that subtest appears.

• Execute the test cases and measure logic coverage.

• Develop additional tests, as indicated by the combined coverage information.

Points to be considered for System Testing:

• System test cases should ensure that the developed system adheres to functionality defined in the Requirements Specification Document.

• Black Box testing approach will be followed for System Testing. This approach will be more positive in System Testing by testing what a normal user will do with the application.

• Application build instructions (software and hardware or target environment) will be available before commencing System Testing.

• Production environment will be simulated and system will be installed as per build instructions.

• System Testing will be carried out in a separate environment under control of Test Team and will use live data.

• System Testing will happen in the various environments, platforms, and operating systems for which the software has been designed.

• Write test cases for all possible system failures, e.g.:

• What will happen if system reboots accidentally.

• What will happen if the host environment crashes.

• What will happen if the database gets corrupted.

• What will happen if the server is down for a particular period.

Interview Questions

Test Automation: 1. What automating testing tools are you familiar with? 2. How did you use automating testing tools in your job? 3. Describe some problem that you had with automating testing tool. 4. How do you plan test automation? 5. Can test automation improve test effectiveness? 6. What is data - driven automation? 7. What are the main attributes of test automation? 8. Does automation replace manual testing?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page73 of 77

9. How will you choose a tool for test automation? 10. How you will evaluate the tool for test automation? 11. What are main benefits of test automation? 12. What could go wrong with test automation? 13. How you will describe testing activities? 14. What testing activities you may want to automate? 15. Describe common problems of test automation. 16. What types of scripting techniques for test automation do you know? 17. What are principles of good testing scripts for automation? 18. What tools are available for support of testing during software development life cycle? 19. Can the activities of test case design be automated? 20. What are the limitations of automating software testing? 21. What skills needed to be a good test automator? 22. How to find that tools work well with your existing system?

Load Testing: 1.What criteria would you use to select Web transactions for load testing?2.For what purpose are virtual users created?3.Why it is recommended to add verification checks to your all your scenarios?4.In what situation would you want to parameterize a text verification check?5.Why do you need to parameterize fields in your virtual user script?6.What are the reasons why parameterization is necessary when load testing the Web server and the database server?7.How can data caching have a negative effect on load testing results?8.What usually indicates that your virtual user script has dynamic data that is dependent on you parameterized fields?9.What are the benefits of creating multiple actions within any virtual user script?

General questions:

1. What types of documents would you need for QA, QC, and Testing? 2. What did you include in a test plan? 3. Describe any bug you remember. 4. What is the purpose of the testing? 5. What do you like (not like) in this job? 6. What is quality assurance? 7. What is the difference between QA and testing? 8. How do you scope, organize, and execute a test project? 9. What is the role of QA in a development project? 10. What is the role of QA in a company that produces software? 11. Define quality for me as you understand it 12. Describe to me the difference between validation and verification. 13. Describe to me what you see as a process. Not a particular process, just the basics of having a process. 14. Describe to me when you would consider employing a failure mode and effect analysis.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page74 of 77

15. Describe to me the Software Development Life Cycle as you would define it. 16. What are the properties of a good requirement? 17. How do you differentiate the roles of Quality Assurance Manager and Project Manager? 18. Tell me about any quality efforts you have overseen or implemented. Describe some of the challenges you faced and how you overcame them. 19. How do you deal with environments that are hostile to quality change efforts? 20. In general, how do you see automation fitting into the overall process of testing? 21. How do you promote the concept of phase containment and defect prevention? 22. If you come onboard, give me a general idea of what your first overall tasks will be as far as starting a quality effort. 23. What kinds of testing have you done? 24. Have you ever created a test plan? 25. Have you ever written test cases or did you just execute those written by others? 26. What did your base your test cases? 27. How do you determine what to test? 28. How do you decide when you have 'tested enough?' 29. How do you test if you have minimal or no documentation about the product? 30. Describe me to the basic elements you put in a defect report? 31. How do you perform regression testing? 32. At what stage of the life cycle does testing begin in your opinion? 33. How do you analyze your test results? What metrics do you try to provide? 34. Realising you won't be able to test everything - how do you decide what to test first? 35. Where do you get your expected results? 36. If automating - what is your process for determining what to automate and in what order? 37. In the past, I have been asked to verbally start mapping out a test plan for a common situation, such as an ATM. The interviewer might say, "Just thinking out loud, if you were tasked to test an ATM, what items might you test plan include?" These type questions are not meant to be answered conclusively, but it is a good way for the interviewer to see how you approach the task. 38. If you're given a program that will average student grades, what kinds of inputs would you use? 39. Tell me about the best bug you ever found. 40. What made you pick testing over another career? 41. What is the exact difference between Integration & System testing, give me examples with your project. 42. How did you go about testing a project? 43. When should testing start in a project? Why? 44. How do you go about testing a web application? 45. Difference between Black & White box testing 46. What is Configuration management? Tools used? 47. What do you plan to become after say 2-5yrs (Ex: QA Manager, Why?) 48. Would you like to work in a team or alone, why? 49. Give me 5 strong & weak points of yours 50. Why do you want to join our company? 51. When should testing be stopped? 52. What sort of things would you put down in a bug report? 53. Who in the company is responsible for Quality? 54. Who defines quality? 55. What is an equivalence class? 56. Is a "A fast database retrieval rate" a testable requirement?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page75 of 77

57. Should we test every possible combination/scenario for a program? 58. What criteria do you use when determining when to automate a test or leave it manual? 59. When do you start developing your automation tests? 60. Discuss what test metrics you feel are important to publish an organization? 61. In case anybody cares, here are the questions that I will be asking: 62. Describe the role that QA plays in the software lifecycle. 63. What should Development require of QA? 64. What should QA require of Development? 65. How would you define a "bug?" 66. Give me an example of the best and worst experiences you've had with QA. 67. How does unit testing play a role in the development / software lifecycle? 68. Explain some techniques for developing software components with respect to testability. 69. Describe a past experience with implementing a test harness in the development of software. 70. Have you ever worked with QA in developing test tools? Explain the participation Development should have with QA in leveraging such test tools for QA use. 71. Give me some examples of how you have participated in Integration Testing. 72. How would you describe the involvement you have had with the bug-fix cycle between Development and QA? 72. What is unit testing? 73. Describe your personal software development process. 74. How do you know when your code has met specifications? 75. How do you know your code has met specifications when there are no specifications? 76. Describe your experiences with code analyzers. 77. How do you feel about cyclomatic complexity? 78. Who should test your code? 79.How do you survive chaos? 80. What processes/methodologies are you familiar with? 81. What type of documents would you need for QA/QC/Testing? 82. How can you use technology to solve problem? 83. What type of metrics would you use? 84. How to find that tools work well with your existing system? 85. What automated tools are you familiar with? 86. How well you work with a team? 87. How would you ensure 100% coverage of testing? 88. How would you build a test team? 89. What problem you have right now or in the past? How you solved it? 90. What you will do during the first day of job? 91. What would you like to do five years from now? 92. Tell me about the worst boss you've ever had. 93. What are your greatest weaknesses? 94. What are your strengths? 95. What is a successful product? 96. What do you like about Windows? 97. What is good code? 98. Who is Kent Beck, Dr Grace Hopper, Dennis Ritchie? 99. What are basic, core, practises for a QA specialist? 100. What do you like about QA? 101. What has not worked well in your previous QA experience and what would you change?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page76 of 77

102. How you will begin to improve the QA process? 103. What is the difference between QA and QC? 104. What is UML and how to use it for testing? 105. What is CMM and CMMI? What is the difference? 106. What do you like about computers? 107. Do you have a favourite QA book? More than one? Which ones? And why. 108. What is the responsibility of programmers vs QA?

From Cem Kaner article: "Recruiting testers" December 1999

1. What is software quality assurance? 2. What is the value of a testing group? How do you justify your work and budget? 3. What is the role of the test group vis-à-vis documentation, tech support, and so forth? 4. How much interaction with users should testers have, and why? 5. How should you learn about problems discovered in the field, and what should you learn from those problems? 6. What are the roles of glass-box and black-box testing tools? 7. What issues come up in test automation, and how do you manage them? 8. What development model should programmers and the test group use? 9. How do you get programmers to build testability support into their code? 10. What is the role of a bug tracking system? 11. What are the key challenges of testing? 12. Have you ever completely tested any part of a product? How? 13. Have you done exploratory or specification-driven testing? 14. Should every business test its software the same way? 15. Discuss the economics of automation and the role of metrics in testing. 16. Describe components of a typical test plan, such as tools for interactive products and for database products, as well as cause-and-effect graphs and data-flow diagrams. 17. When have you had to focus on data integrity? 18. What are some of the typical bugs you encountered in your last assignment? 19. How do you prioritize testing tasks within a project? 20. How do you develop a test plan and schedule? Describe bottom-up and top-down approaches. 21. When should you begin test planning? 22. When should you begin testing? 23. Do you know of metrics that help you estimate the size of the testing effort? 24. How do you scope out the size of the testing effort? 25. How many hours a week should a tester work? 26. How should your staff be managed? How about your overtime? 27. How do you estimate staff requirements? 28. What do you do (with the project tasks) when the schedule fails? 29. How do you handle conflict with programmers? 30. How do you know when the product is tested well enough? 31. What characteristics would you seek in a candidate for test-group manager? 32. What do you think the role of test-group manager should be? Relative to senior management? Relative to other technical groups in the company? Relative to your staff? 33. How do your characteristics compare to the profile of the ideal manager that you just described?

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2

page77 of 77

34. How does your preferred work style work with the ideal test-manager role that you just described? What is different between the way you work and the role you described? 35. Who should you hire in a testing group and why? 36. What is the role of metrics in comparing staff performance in human resources management? 37. How do you estimate staff requirements? 38. What do you do (with the project staff) when the schedule fails? 39. Describe some staff conflicts you’ve handled.

8/9/20084665114.doc Revision 2