Search Results

Search found 1138 results on 46 pages for 'formal verification'.

Page 1/46 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Functional testing in the verification

    - by user970696
    Yesterday my question How come verification does not include actual testing? created a lot of controversy, yet did not reveal the answer for related and very important question: does black box functional testing done by testers belong to verification or validation? ISO 12207:12208 here mentiones testing explicitly only as a validation activity, however, it speaks about validation of requirements of the intended use. For me its more high level, like UAT test cases written by business users ISO mentioned above does not mention any specific verification (7.2.4.3.2)except for Requirement verification, Design verification, Document and Code & Integration verification. The last two can be probably thought as unit and integrated testing. But where is then the regular testing done by testers at the end of the phase? The book I mentioned in the original question mentiones that verification is done by static techniques, yet on the V model graph it describes System testing against high level description as a verification, mentioning it includes all kinds of testing like functional, load etc. In the IEEE standard for V&V, you can read this: Even though the tests and evaluations are not part of the V&V processes, the techniques described in this standard may be useful in performing them. So that is different than in ISO, where validation mentiones testing as the activity. Not to mention a lot of contradicting information on the net. I would really appreciate a reference to e.g. a standard in the answer or explanation of what I missed in the ISO. For me, I am unable to tell where the testers work belong.

    Read the article

  • How come verification does not include actual testing?

    - by user970696
    Having read a lot about this topic, I still did not get it. Verification should prove that you are building the product right, while validation you build the right product. But only static techniques are mentioned as being verification methods (code reviews, requirements checks...). But how can you say if its implemented correctly if you do not test it? It is said that verification checks e.g. code for its correctnes. Verification - ensure that the product meet specified requirements. Again, if the function is specified to work somehow, only by testing I can say that it does. Could anyone explain this to me please? EDIT: As Wiki says: Verification:Preparing of the test cases (based on the analysis of the requireemnts) Validation: Running of the test cases

    Read the article

  • Verification of requirements question

    - by user970696
    Doing a lot of reading about V&V, I would need to clarify the following. A lot of definitons (less formal ones found in books) define verification like that: Verification: The software should conform to its specification. But then they speak about requirement verification, design verification etc. If I say that these items are "software" in terms of applying the definitons, what should I checked them against, what specification should requirements, which is the basic information, conform to? And one more thing: shouldnt be requirements also validated? To make sure they meets the customer needs? All texts I have speak only about SW validation on the end of the dev.process..

    Read the article

  • How to apply verification and validation on the following example

    - by user970696
    I have been following verification and validation questions here with my colleagues, yet we are unable to see the slight differences, probably caused by language barrier in technical English. An example: Requirement specification User wants to control the lights in 4 rooms by remote command sent from the UI for each room separately. Functional specification The UI will contain 4 checkboxes labelled according to rooms they control. When a checkbox is checked, the signal is sent to corresponding light. A green dot appears next to the checkbox When a checkbox is unchecked, the signal (turn off) is sent to corresponding light. A red dot appears next to the checkbox. Let me start with what I learned here: Verification, according to many great answers here, ensures that product reflects specified requirements - as functional spec is done by a producer based on requirements from customer, this one will be verified for completeness, correctness). Then design document will be checked against functional spec (it should design 4 checkboxes..), and the source code against design (is there a code for 4 checkboxes, functions to send the signals etc. - is it traceable to requirements). Okay, product is built and we need to test it, validate. Here comes our understanding trouble - validation should ensure the product meets requirements for its specific intended use which is basically business requirement (does it work? can I control the lights from the UI?) but testers will definitely work with the functional spec, making sure the checkboxes are there, working, labelled, etc. They are basically checking whether the requirements in functional spec were met in the final product, isn't that verification? (should not be, lets stick to ISO 12207 that only validation is the actual testing)

    Read the article

  • Quality Assurance & Quality Control = verification & validation?

    - by user970696
    According to a book (page below), reviewing e.g. design (verification activity) is quality assurance. I would not agree, I would say its quality control because we are checking the conformance to specification, plans and detecting deviations (defects) as we do in quality control. But what would be an example of QA then? Could you give me a clear example that proves/disproves what is this book saying? Software Testing: Srinisvasan Desikan, Gopalaswamy Ramesh

    Read the article

  • Is verification and validation part of testing process?

    - by user970696
    Based on many sources I do not believe the simple definition that aim of testing is to find as many bugs as possible - we test to ensure that it works or that it does not. E.g. followint are goals of testing form ISTQB: Determine that (software products) satisfy specified requirements ( I think its verificication) Demonstrate that (software products) are fit for purpose (I think that is validation) Detect defects I would agree that testing is verification, validation and defect detection. Is that correct?

    Read the article

  • ISO 12207: Verification of integration and Unit test validation

    - by user970696
    I have received comments from the supervisor reviewing my thesis. He asked two questions I cannot answer right now: If ISO 12207 says under "Integration verification" that it "checks that components are correctly and completely integrated into a system", how this can be verified without testing, if all testing is validation? How without testing can I know that system is integrated correctly and fully? If unit testing is validation, how does it match the ISO definiton of validation "that requirements for intended use were fulfilled" if its so low level?

    Read the article

  • Verification as QA - makes sense?

    - by user970696
    Preparing my thesis, I found another interesting discrepancy. While some books say verification it terms of static analysis of work products is quality control (looking for defects), other say it is actually quality assurance because the process of checking is decreasing the probability of real defects when these deliverables will be used for product manufacture. I hesitate as both seems to be correct: it is a way of checking for defects (deviation from requirements, design flaws etc.) so it looks like quality control, but also it is a process which does not have to be done and if done, can yield better quality.

    Read the article

  • Validation and Verification explanation (Boehm) - I cannot understand its point

    - by user970696
    Hopefully my last thread about V&V as I found the B.Boehm is text which I just do not understand well (likely my technical English is not that good). http://csse.usc.edu/csse/TECHRPTS/1979/usccse79-501/usccse79-501.pdf Basically he says that verification is about checking that products derived from requirements baseline must correspond to it and that deviation leads only to changes in these derived products (design, code). But he says it begins with design and ends with acceptance tests (you can check the V model inside). The thing is, I have accepted ISO12207 in terms of all testing is validation, yet it does not make any sense here. In order to be sure the product complies with requirements (acceptance test) I need to test it. Also it says that validation problems means that requirements are bad and needs to be changed - which does not happen with testing that testers do, who just checks correspondence with requirements.

    Read the article

  • Age verification forms and crawlers

    - by user333763
    I have created a website about some beer brand and had to include age verification page. The verification script is written in PHP and uses sessions to store verification variable. The script works the way that no matter form which link you will try to enter the website it will take you to the verification page first. The verification is very simple. There are 2 button: "I'm under 21" and "I'm over 21". If you click the latter, you can browse the website. After some time I discovered that the web crawlers are not able to get past verification page. I checked the website in Google webmaster tools and the only text content scanned was from the verification page. I read somewhere that crawlers are not able to submit form buttons, is it true? Considering the fact that age verification pages are useless anyways, maybe I should just leave it as a starting page but don't forbid going around it, e.g. from links to the subpages?

    Read the article

  • Verification of UML Class Diagram

    - by Jean Carlos Suárez Marranzini
    This is my UML Class Diagram made in Astah Community, for a tennis scoreboard game. Here's a link to the image (I don't have enough rep to post images): http://i47.tinypic.com/2lsxx90.png Points are calculated based on moves. Moves can be either points (for the player's advantage) or errors (for the opponent's advantage). The Time Machine allows you to travel to previous game states (expressed as scoreboards). The storage component should be able to store matches independently of the serialization format. The serializers and deserializers should be able to do their job regardless of where the storage lies. The GameEngine should be able to apply the rules of the game regardless of the particularities of the game (hence, dependency injection through the Settings class). The outcomes of games, sets and matches should be deducible based on the points and the rules to apply (the logic implementations are there to provide the rules). Could you please verify my design and tell me if there's anything wrong with it? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Simple Architecture Verification

    - by Jean Carlos Suárez Marranzini
    I just made an architecture for an application with the function of scoring, saving and loading tennis games. The architecture has 2 kinds of elements: components & layers. Components: Standalone elements that can be consumed by other components or by layers. They might also consume functionality from the model/bottom layer. Layers: Software components whose functionality rests on previous layers (except for the model layer). -Layers: -Models: Data and it's behavior. -Controllers: A layer that allows interaction between the views and the models. -Views: The presentation layer for interacting with the user. -Components: -Persistence: Makes sure the game data can be stored away for later retrieval. -Time Machine: Records changes in the game through time so it's possible to navigate the game back and forth. -Settings: Contains the settings that determine how some of the game logic will apply. -Game Engine: Contains all the game logic, which it applies to the game data to determine the path the game should take. This is an image of the architecture (I don't have enough rep to post images): http://i49.tinypic.com/35lt5a9.png The requierements which this architecture should satisfy are the following: Save & load games. Move through game history and see how the scoreboard changes as the game evolves. Tie-breaks must be properly managed. Games must be classified by hit-type. Every point can be modified. Match name and player names must be stored. Game logic must be configurable by the user. I would really appreciate any kind of advice or comments on this architecture. To see if it is well built and makes sense as a whole. I took the idea from this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller

    Read the article

  • Should I use formal methods on my software project?

    - by Michael
    Our client wants us to build a web-based, rich internet application for gathering software requirements. Basically it's a web-based case tool that follows a specific process for getting requirements from stakeholders. I'm the project manager and we're still in the early phases of the project. I've been thinking about using formal methods to help clarify the requirements for the tool for both my client and the developers. By formal methods I mean some form of modeling, possibly something mathematically-based. Some of the things I've read about and are considering include Z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_notation), state machines, UML 2.0 (possibly with extensions such as OCL), Petri nets, and some coding-level stuff like contracts and pre and post conditions. Is there anything else I should consider? The developers are experienced but depending on the formalism used they may have to learn some math. I'm trying to determine whether it's worth while for me to use formal methods on this project and if so, to what extent. I know "it depends" so the most helpful answers for me is a yes/no and supporting arguments. Would you use formal methods if you were on this project?

    Read the article

  • Quality Assurance activities

    - by MasloIed
    Having asked but deleted the question as it was a bit misunderstood. If Quality Control is the actual testing, what are the commonest true quality assurance activities? I have read that verification (reviews, inspections..) but it does not make much sense to me as it looks more like quality control as mentioned here: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ENTERPRISE PERFORMANCE LIFE CYCLE FRAMEWORK Practices guide Verification - “Are we building the product right?” Verification is a quality control technique that is used to evaluate the system or its components to determine whether or not the project’s products satisfy defined requirements. During verification, the project’s processes are reviewed and examined by members of the IV&V team with the goal of preventing omissions, spotting problems, and ensuring the product is being developed correctly. Some Verification activities may include items such as: • Verification of requirement against defined specifications • Verification of design against defined specifications • Verification of product code against defined standards • Verification of terms, conditions, payment, etc., against contracts

    Read the article

  • Verfication vs validation again, does testing belong to verification? If so, which?

    - by user970696
    I have asked before and created a lot of controversy so I tried to collect some data and ask similar question again. E.g. V&V where all testing is only validation: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-5-2005-68117.asp According to ISO 12207, testing is done in validation: •Prepare Test Requirements,Cases and Specifications •Conduct the Tests In verification, it mentiones. The code implements proper event sequence, consistent interfaces, correct data and control flow, completeness, appropriate allocation timing and sizing budgets, and error definition, isolation, and recovery. and The software components and units of each software item have been completely and correctly integrated into the software item Not sure how to verify without testing but it is not there as a technique. From IEEE: Verification: The process of evaluating software to determine whether the products of a given development phase satisfy the conditions imposed at the start of that phase. [IEEE-STD-610]. Validation: The process of evaluating software during or at the end of the development process to determine whether it satisfies specified requirements. [IEEE-STD-610] At the end of development phase? That would mean UAT.. So the question is, what testing (unit, integration, system, uat) will be considered verification or validation? I do not understand why some say dynamic verification is testing, while others that only validation. An example: I am testing an application. System requirements say there are two fields with max. lenght of 64 characters and Save button. Use case say: User will fill in first and last name and save. When checking the fields and Save button presence, I would say its verification. When I follow the use case, its validation. So its both together, done on the system as a whole.

    Read the article

  • Email Verification plugin for rails?

    - by Larry K
    Hi, I'd like to verify a user's email address by sending them a verify-email-message. Do you know of a good Rails plugin that they've used or seen? Since I didn't see anything good via Google, at this point, my thought is: Add a verified boolean field to the user model. Default false. After user is added (unverified), combine email with a salt (a secret), and create the sha1 hash of the email/salt combo. The result is the verification. Send a welcoming / verification email to the user. Email includes a url that has the email address and verification as GET args to a verify action on my server. The verify action recomputes the verification using the supplied email and checks that the new verification matches the one in the url. If it does, then the User rec for the email is marked 'verified' Also will provide action to re-send the verification email. Any comments on the above? Thanks, Larry

    Read the article

  • Oracle Enterprise Data Quality Adds Global Address Verification Capabilities for Greater Accuracy and Broader Location Coverage

    - by Mala Narasimharajan
    Data quality – has many flavors to it.  Product, Customer – you name the data domain and there’s data quality associated with it.  Address verification and data quality are a little different.  in that there is a tremendous amount of variation as well as nuance attached to it.  Specifically, what makes address verification challenging is that more often than not, addresses are incomplete, riddled with misspellings, incorrect postal codes are assigned to locations or non-address items are present.  Almost all data has locations, and accurate locations power a wealth of business processes: Customer Relationship Management, data quality, delivery of materials, goods or services, fraud detection, insurance risk assessment, data analytics, store and territory planning, and much more. Oracle Address Verification Server provides location-based services as well as deeper parsing and analysis capabilities for Oracle Enterprise Data Quality.  Specifically, Pre-integrated with the EDQ platform, Oracle Address Verification Server provides robust parsing, validation, as well as specialized location information for over 240 countries – all populated countries on Earth.  Oracle Enterprise Data Quality (EDQ) is a data quality platform, dedicated to address the distinct challenges of customer and product data quality, and performs advanced data profiling to identify and measure poor quality data and identify rule requirements, as well as semantic and pattern-based recognition to accurately parse and standardize data that is poorly structured.   EDQ is integrated with Oracle Master Data Management, including Oracle Customer Hub and Oracle Product Hub, as well as Oracle Data Integrator Enterprise Edition and Oracle CRM.  Address Verification Server provides key address verification services for Oracle CRM and Oracle Customer Hub.  In addition, Address Verification Server provides greater accuracy when handling address data due to its expanded sources and extensible knowledge repository, solid parsing across locales and countries as well as  adept handling of extraneous data in address fields.  For more information on Oracle Address Verification Server visit:  http://bit.ly/GMUE4H and http://bit.ly/GWf7U6

    Read the article

  • How to avoid lftp Certificate verification error?

    - by pattulus
    I'm trying to get my Pelican blog working. It uses lftp to transfer the actual blog to ones server, but I always get an error: mirror: Fatal error: Certificate verification: subjectAltName does not match ‘blogname.com’ I think lftp is checking the SSL and the quick setup of Pelican just forgot to include that I don't have SSL on my FTP. This is the code in Pelican's Makefile: ftp_upload: $(OUTPUTDIR)/index.html lftp ftp://$(FTP_USER)@$(FTP_HOST) -e "mirror -R $(OUTPUTDIR) $(FTP_TARGET_DIR) ; quit" which renders in terminal as: lftp ftp://[email protected] -e "mirror -R /Volumes/HD/Users/me/Test/output /myblog_directory ; quit" What I managed so far is, denying the SSL check by changing the Makefile to: lftp ftp://$(FTP_USER)@$(FTP_HOST) -e "set ftp:ssl-allow no" "mirror -R $(OUTPUTDIR) $(FTP_TARGET_DIR) ; quit" Due to my incorrect implementation I get logged in correctly (lftp [email protected]:~>) but the one line feature doesn't work anymore and I have to enter the mirror command by hand: mirror -R /Volumes/HD/Users/me/Test/output/ /myblog_directory This works without an error and timeout. The question is how to do this with a one liner. In addition I tried: set ssl:verify-certificate/ftp.myblog.com no This trick to disable certificate verification in lftp: $ cat ~/.lftp/rc set ssl:verify-certificate no However, it seems there is no "rc" folder in my lftp directory - so this prompt has no chance to work.

    Read the article

  • Formal Languages, Inductive Proofs & Regular Expressions

    - by MarkPearl
    So I am slogging away at my UNISA stuff. I have just finished doing the initial once non stop read through the first 11 chapters of my COS 201 Textbook - “Introduction to Computer Theory 2nd Edition” by Daniel Cohen. It has been an interesting couple of days, with familiar concepts coming up as well as some new territory. In this posting I am going to cover the first couple of chapters of the book. Let start with Formal Languages… What exactly is a formal language? Pretty much a no duh question for me but still a good one to ask – a formal language is a language that is defined in a precise mathematical way. Does that mean that the English language is a formal language? I would say no – and my main motivation for this is that one can have an English sentence that is correct grammatically that is also ambiguous. For example the ambiguous sentence: "I once shot an elephant in my pyjamas.” For this and possibly many other reasons that I am unaware of, English is termed a “Natural Language”. So why the importance of formal languages in computer science? Again a no duh question in my mind… If we want computers to be effective and useful tools then we need them to be able to evaluate a series of commands in some form of language that when interpreted by the device no confusion will exist as to what we were requesting. Imagine the mayhem that would exist if a computer misinterpreted a command to print a document and instead decided to delete it. So what is a Formal Language made up of… For my study purposes a language is made up of a finite alphabet. For a formal language to exist there needs to be a specification on the language that will describe whether a string of characters has membership in the language or not. There are two basic ways to do this: By a “machine” that will recognize strings of the language (e.g. Finite Automata). By a rule that describes how strings of a language can be formed (e.g. Regular Expressions). When we use the phrase “string of characters”, we can also be referring to a “word”. What is an Inductive Proof? So I am not to far into my textbook and of course it starts referring to proofs and different types. I have had to go through several different approaches of proofs in the past, but I can never remember their formal names , so when I saw “inductive proof” I thought to myself – what the heck is that? Google to the rescue… An inductive proof is like a normal proof but it employs a neat trick which allows you to prove a statement about an arbitrary number n by first proving it is true when n is 1 and then assuming it is true for n=k and showing it is true for n=k+1. The idea is that if you want to show that someone can climb to the nth floor of a fire escape, you need only show that you can climb the ladder up to the fire escape (n=1) and then show that you know how to climb the stairs from any level of the fire escape (n=k) to the next level (n=k+1). Does this sound like a form of recursion? No surprise then that in the same chapter they deal with recursive definitions. An example of a recursive definition for the language EVEN would the 3 rules below: 2 is in EVEN If x is in EVEN then so is x+2 The only elements in the set EVEN are those that be produced by the rules above. Nothing to exciting… So if a definition for a language is done recursively, then it makes sense that the language can be proved using induction. Regular Expressions So I am wondering to myself what use is this all – in fact – I find this the biggest challenge to any university material is that it is quite hard to find the immediate practical applications of some theory in real life stuff. How great was my joy when I suddenly saw the word regular expression being introduced. I had been introduced to regular expressions on Stack Overflow where I was trying to recognize if some text measurement put in by a user was in a valid form or not. For instance, the imperial system of measurement where you have feet and inches can be represented in so many different ways. I had eventually turned to regular expressions as an easy way to check if my parser could correctly parse the text or not and convert it to a normalize measurement. So some rules about languages and regular expressions… Any finite language can be represented by at least one if not more regular expressions A regular expressions is almost a rule syntax for expressing how regular languages can be formed regular expressions are cool For a regular expression to be valid for a language it must be able to generate all the words in the language and no other words. This is important. It doesn’t help me if my regular expression parses 100% of my measurement texts but also lets one or two invalid texts to pass as well. Okay, so this posting jumps around a bit – but introduces some very basic fundamentals for the subject which will be built on in later postings… Time to go and do some practical examples now…

    Read the article

  • Bulk Email Verification Tool

    - by JoefrshnJoeclean
    I'm looking for a bulk email validation tool to parse a list of 60K email addresses. Our company sends out 8 Million email newsletters a month via our mailing list software - MDAEMON. MDAEMON ships with a bad email address validator but I'm not quite comfortable with its results as it captures returned email addresses with SMTP errors of 500 and above. (We want to keep emails that return a Full Mailbox error or bounce backs that see us as SPAM) To further prune the list, we use Advanced Email Verifier. But I tested a random sample of this list and found a couple emails to be valid. Since our company relies heavily on traffic from our newsletters, I am wondering what other Windows-based bulk email verifier tools are out there?

    Read the article

  • Is there a formal definiton of software quality

    - by user970696
    I am looking for a formal definition of software quality. It is my understanding that ISO 25000 is intended to provide or measure the quality of a piece of software, but it doesn't appear ready yet and I can't tell if it specifically contains such a definiton. Currently ISO 9126 did contain one such definition, but my understanding is that it is being replaced with ISO 25000. So I ask, is there are formal definition of software quality?

    Read the article

  • Mac App Store Reviewer says "It appears Kiwi fails codesign verification"

    - by isaiah
    But it clearly does not fail on my system. The Verification test in XCode during the submission should (I assume) test this. And running codesign on the command line of the archived app results in: /Users/iac/Library/Application Support/Developer/Shared/Archived Applications/272860A0-961E-47E7-B62F-0F7D373D938A.apparchive/Kiwi.app: valid on disk /Users/iac/Library/Application Support/Developer/Shared/Archived Applications/272860A0-961E-47E7-B62F-0F7D373D938A.apparchive/Kiwi.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement Anyone run into something like this before? Thanks, Isaiah

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >