Search Results

Search found 32 results on 2 pages for 'user970696'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

• 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

• 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

• Why some consider static analysis a testing and some do not?

  - by user970696

  Preparing myself also to ISTQB certification, I found they call static analysis actually as a static testing, while some engineering book distinct between static analysis and testing, which is the dynamic activity. I tent to think that static analysis is not a testing in the true sense as it does not test, it checks/verifies. But sure I would love to hear opinion of the true experts here. Thank you

  Read the article

• UML class diagram - can aggregated object be part of two aggregated classes?

  - by user970696

  Some sources say that aggregation means that the class owns the object and shares reference. Lets assume an example where a company class holds a list of cars but departments of that company has list of cars used by them. class Department { list<Car> listOfCars; } class Company { list<Car> listOfCars; //initialization of the list } So in UML class diagram, I would do it like this. But I assume this is not allowed because it would imply that both company and department own the objects.. [COMPANY]<>------[CAR] [DEPARTMENT]<>---| //imagine this goes up to the car class

  Read the article

• How can QA prevent defects?

  - by user970696

  Also according to Software Testing By Srinisvasan Desikan, Gopalaswamy Ramesh or ISTQB text books. Quality assurance is e.g. reviewing products, inspections, walkthroughs to see if all standards are being followed. This is preventive activity. I cannot see how this can be preventive? For the references: defect prevention (Quality Assurance) Software Testing By Srinisvasan Desikan, Gopalaswamy Ramesh Quality Assurance (QA) tries to go one step further. Instead of concentrating on post- facto defect detection and correction, it focusses on the prevention of defects from the very start. Managing Global Software Projects - Page 110 QA deals with prevention of defects in the product being developed. Software Testing and Quality Assurance

  Read the article

• bug: deviation from requirements vs deviation from expectations

  - by user970696

  I am not clear on this one. No matter the terminology, in the end the software fault/bug causes (according to a lot of sources): Deviation from requirements Devation from expectations But if the expectations are not in requirements, then stakeholder could see a bug everywhere as he expected it to be like this or that..So how can I really know? I did read that specification can miss things and then of course its expected but not specified (by mistake).

  Read the article

• How to depict Import a file action in the Sequence diagram

  - by user970696

  Everyone says sequence diagrams are so easy but I just cannot figure this out. Basically user clicks on an 'Import from temp folder' button, the program opens a window with a list populated with filenames, user clicks on a filename, clicks on OK and the document is imported. I know the order of the actions but how to depict e.g. populating a list, or selecting an item from a list? So I assume the objects would be like: [USER] [ImportDialogWindow] [ListOfFiles:STRING] [?where to go with selected file]

  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

• Is there a real difference between dynamic analysis and testing?

  - by user970696

  Often testing is regarded as a dynamic analysis of a software. Yet while writing my thesis, the reviewer noted to me that dynamic analysis is about analyzing the program behind the scenes - e.g. profiling and that it is not the same as testing because its "analysis" which looks inside and observes. I know that "static analysis" is not testing, should we then separate this "dynamic analysis" also from testing? Some books do refer to dynamic analysis in this sense. I would maybe say that testing is a one mean of dynamic analysis?

  Read the article

• What are the processes of true Quality assurance?

  - by user970696

  Having read that Quality Assurance (QA) is focused on processes (while Quality Control (QC) is focused on the product), the books often mentions QA is the verification process - doing peer reviews, inspections etc. I still tend to think these are also QC as they check intermediate products. Elsewhere I have read that QA activity is e.g. choosing the right bugtracker. That sounds better to me in terms of process improvement. The question that close-voting person obviously missed is pretty clear: What are the activities that true QA should perform? I would appreciate the reference as I work on my thesis dealing with all these discrepancies and inconsistencies in the software quality world.

  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 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

• 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

• 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

• System testing - making sure the system conforms to specification. Validation?

  - by user970696

  After weeks of research I have nearly completed my thesis, yet I am unable to clear up my confusion contained in all previous threads here (and in many books): During system testing, we check the system function against system analysis (functional system design) - but that would fit to a definition of verification according to many books. But I follow ISO12207, which considers all testing as validation (making sure work product meets requirement for intended use). How can I justify that unit testing or system testing is validation, even though when I check it against specification? Which fullfils the definiton of verification? When testing that e.g. "Save button" works, is it validation? This picture shows my understanding of V&V, so different from many other sources, including ISTQB etc. Essential problem I have is that a book using the same picture also states on another place that: test activities in the area of validation are usability, alpha and beta testing. For verification, testable system requirements are defined whose correct implementation can be tested through system tests. Isn't that the opposite of what the picture says? Most books present the following picture, where validation is just making sure that customer needs are satisfied. Mind you that according to ISO, validation activity is testing.

  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

• Inspection, code review - is it really testing?

  - by user970696

  ISTQB, Wikipedia or other sources classify verification acitivities (reviews etc.) as a static testing, yet other do not. If we can say that peer reviews and inspections are actually a kind of a testing, then a lot of standards do not make sense (consider e.g. ISO which say that validation is done by testing, while verification by checking of work products) - it should at least say dynamic testing for validation, shouldn't it? I am completing master thesis dealing with QA and I must admit that I have never seen worse and more ambiguous and contradicting literature than in this field :/ Do you think (and if so, why) that static testing is a good and justifiable term or should we stick to testing and static checks/analysis?

  Read the article

• ISTQB terminology question (Defect)

  - by user970696

  According to ISTQB (and few more sources + wiki ), a defect/bug is the actual cause of error in software, e.g. incorrect statement, logical or semantic error. The actual definion is: a flaw in the system or component that could lead to the failure. But what about specification bugs? I cannot relate to it. Specification bugs are quite common but if the programmer implements software according to spec with a bug, it is not his fault (IMHO). But then the definion could not apply and I am sure it must have been addressed somehow. Could you help me to understand this?

  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

• Severity and relation to occurence - priority?

  - by user970696

  I have been browsing through some webpages related to testing and found one dealing with the metrics of testing. It says: The severity level of a defect indicates the potential business impact for the end user (business impact = effect on the end user x frequency of occurrence). I do not think think this is correct or what am I missing? Usually it is the priority which is the result of such a calculation (severe bug that occurs rarely is still severe but does not have to be fixed immediately). Also from this description, what is the difference between the effect on the end user and business impact?

  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

• How to create a use case diagram for board game played on PC

  - by user970696

  I'm struggling with a task as I was given to practice UML and use cases. The problem is that I should model computer version of a board game so I am unsure about a few things. obviously it does not matter if you play against the PC or another player, the actions are the same. The game is simply like tic tac toe. E.g. Actor Player ---(Place a diamond)-----include----(Check for a row)---include--(Swap players) But the game is played on the PC, so is Check for row really a use case? And the same with Swap players? Because the system would do that. On the other hand, if it was not, how could I continue?

  Read the article

• Sources of requirements? [closed]

  - by user970696

  I was reading a book about SW engineering the other day and it went like: Sources of both functional and non-functional requirements are: law (for specific cases) business and user requirements etc. //what else then? So the question is, what other sources of requirements there are when an analyst is gathering the information? Lets consider a desktop app for mobile operator. As for the comment, I do not think this is a broad question as the books usually mention 1-2 sources. I would like to know more, if anyone can help.

  Read the article

• ISO 12207: SQA as a supporting process?

  - by user970696

  I have been following ISO12207 for the sake of my thesis dealing with software quality. Now I should explain quality assurance and here comes the problem: according to this norm, QA is a supporting process, separated but on the same level with verification, validation and auditing processes. According to other sources, Quality Assurance is basically high level activity making sure that standards, norms etc. are being followed. Usually the part of Quality Assurance is the Quality Control (testing, reviewing, inspections also V&V) which measures the quality and provides QA with this information so it can be acted upon. I somehow do not understand how QA is thought to be according to this ISO and what activities should it perform. Also it does not mention QC except for a footnote.

  Read the article

• ISO 12207 - testing being only validation activity? [closed]

  - by user970696

  Possible Duplicate: How come verification does not include actual testing? ISO norm 12207 states that testing is only validation activity, while all static inspections are verification (that requirement, code.. is complete, correct..). I did found some articles saying its not correct but you know, it is not "official". I would like to understand because there are two different concepts (in books & articles): 1) Verification is all testing except for UAT (because only user can really validate the use). E.g. here OR 2) Verification is everything but testing. All testing is validation. E.g. here Definitions are mostly the same, as Sommerville's: The aim of verification is to check that the software meets its stated functional and non-functional requirements. Validation, however, is a more general process. The aim of validation is to ensure that the software meets the customer’s expectations. It goes beyond simply checking conformance with the specification to demonstrating that the software does what the customer expects it to do It is really bugging me because I tend to agree that functional testing done on a product (SIT) is still verification because I just follow the requirements. But ISO does not agree..

  Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >