Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Risk-based testing is a frequently used testing approach which utilizes identified risks of a software system to provide decision support in all phases of the testing process. Risk assessment, which is a core activity of every risk-based testing process, is often done in an ad hoc manual way. Software quality assessments, based on quality models, already describe the product-related risks of a whole software product and provide objective and automation-supported assessments. But so far, quality models have not been applied for risk assessment and risk-based testing in a systematic way. This article tries to fill this gap and investigates how the information and data of a quality assessment based on the open quality model QuaMoCo can be integrated into risk-based testing. We first present two generic approaches showing how quality assessments based on quality models can be integrated into risk-based testing and then provide the concrete integration on the basis of the open quality model QuaMoCo. Based on five open source products, a case study is performed. Results of the case study show that a risk-based testing strategy outperforms a lines of code-based testing strategy with regard to the number of defects detected. Moreover, a significant positive relationship between the risk coefficient and the associated number of defects was found.
Al-Qutaish, R. E. (2010). Quality models in software engineering literature: an analytical and comparative study. Journal of American Science, 6(3), 166–175.
Basili, V. R., Briand, L., & Melo, W. L. (1995). Technical report (CS-TR-3443, UMIACS-TR-95-40): a validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators. College Park: University of Maryland, Department of Computer Science.
Bissyande, T. F., Lo, D., Jiang, L., Reveillere, L., Klein, J., & and Le Traon, Y. (2013). Got issues? Who cares about it? A large scale investigation of issue trackers from GitHub. 24th international symposium on software reliability engineering (ISSRE). Pasadena: IEEE. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/2087
Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., McLeod, G. J., & Merrit, M. J. (1978). Characteristics of software quality. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.
Catal, C., Diri, & Banu (2007). Software fault prediction with object-oriented metrics based Artifical immune recognition system. In J. Münch & P. Abrahamsson (Eds.), Product-focused software process improvement, proceedings 8th international conference, PROFES 2007, LNCS 4589 (pp. 300–314). Berlin: Springer.
Cavano, J. P., & McCall, J. A. (1978). A framework for the measurement of software quality. ACM Sigmetrics Performance Evaluation Review, 7(3–4), 133–139. CrossRef
Chacon, S., & Straub, B. (2014). Pro Git: everything you need to know about Git (Ebook). (2.). New York City: Apress. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from https://progit2.s3.amazonaws.com/en/2015-05-31-24e8b/progit-en.519.pdf
Checkstyle. (2001). checkstyle. Retrieved May 16, 2015, from checkstyle: http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/
Deissenböck, F., Heinemann, L., Herrmannsdörfer, M., Lochmann, K., & Wagner, S. (2011). The Quamoco tool chain for quality modeling and assessment. Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2011, May 21–28 (pp. 1007–1009). Waikiki: ACM.
Deissenböck, F., Juergens, E., Lochmann, K., & Wagner, S. (2009). Software quality models: purposes, usage scenarios and requirements. ICSE Workshop on Software Quality, WOSQ ‘09 (pp. 9–14). Vancouver: IEEE Computer Society.
Deissenböck, F., Wagner, S., Pizka, M., Teuchert, S., & Girard, J.-F. (2007). An activity-based quality model for maintainability. International Conference on Software Maintenance, ICSM 2007 (pp. 184–193). Paris, France: IEEE. CrossRef
Dixon, M. (2008). An objective measure of code quality. Technical report.
Erdogan, G., Li, Y., Runde, R. K., Seehusen, F., & Stolen, K. (2014). Approaches for the combined use of risk analysis and testing: a systematic literature review. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 16(5), 627–642. CrossRef
Felderer, M., & Ramler, R. (2014a). A multiple case study on risk-based testing in industry. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 16(5), 609–625. CrossRef
Felderer, M., & Ramler, R. (2014b). Integrating risk-based testing in industrial test processes. Software Quality Journal, 22(3), 543–575. CrossRef
Felderer, M., & Ramler, R. (2016). Risk orientation in software testing processes of small and medium enterprises: an exploratory and comparative study. Software Quality Journal, online first.
Felderer, M., & Schieferdecker, I. (2014). A taxonomy of risk-based testing. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 16(5), 559–568. CrossRef
Felderer, M., Haisjackl, C., Breu, R., & Motz, J. (2012). Integrating manual and automatic risk assessment for risk-based testing. In S. Biffl, D. Winkler, & J. Bergsmann (Eds.), Software quality. Process automation in software development. SWQD 2012, 17–19 January, Vienna, Austria, LNBIP 94 (pp. 159–180). Berlin: Springer.
Felderer, M., Haisjackl, C., Pekar, V., & Breu, R. (2014a). A risk assessment framework for software testing. In T. Margaria & B. Steffen (Eds.), Leveraging applications of formal methods, verification and validation: specialized techniques and applications - ISoLA 2014 part II, LNCS 8803 (pp. 292–308). Berlin: Springer.
Felderer, M., Haisjackl, C., Pekar, V., & Breu, R. (2015). An exploratory study on risk estimation in risk-based testing approaches. In D. Winkler, S. Biffl, & J. Bergsmann (Eds.), Software quality. Software and systems quality in distributed and mobile environments. 7th international conference, SWQD 2015, Vienna, Austria, January 20–23, 2015, Proceedings, LNBIP 200 (pp. 32–43).
Felderer, M., Wendland, M.-F., & Schieferdecker, I. (2014b). Risk-based testing (track introduction). In T. Margaria & B. Steffen (Eds.), Leveraging applications of formal methods, verification and validation: specialized techniques and applications - ISoLA 2014 part II, LNCS 8803 (pp. 274–276). Berlin: Springer.
FindBugs. (2003). FindBugs™ - Find bugs in Java programs. Retrieved May 16, 2015, from FindBugs™: http://findbugs.sourceforge.net/
Franch, X., & Carvallo, J. P. (2003). Using quality models in software package selection. IEEE Software, 20(1), 34–41. CrossRef
Gerrard, P., & Thompson, N. (2002). Risk-based E-business testing. Norwood: Artech House Inc..
Git. (2005). git --distributed-even-if-your-workflow-isnt. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from git: https://git-scm.com/
GitHub, Inc. (2008b). GitHub. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from GitHub: https://github.com/about
GitHub, Inc. (2008c). Closing issues via commit messages. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from GitHub: https://help.github.com/articles/closing-issues-via-commit-messages/
Google Inc. (2005). Google analytics - analysis tools. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from Google Analytics: http://www.google.com/intl/en_uk/analytics/features/analysis-tools.html
Grady, R. B. (1992). Practical software metrics for Project Management and process improvement. New Jersey: Prentice Hill.
Graham, D., Van Veenendaal, E., Evans, I., & Black, R. (2008). Foundations of software testing: ISTQB certification. London: Cengage Learning EMEA.
Grzegorzewski, P., & Ziembinska, P. (2011). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient for vague preferences. In H. Christiansen, G. De Tre, A. Yazici, S. Zadrozny, T. Andreasen, & H. L. Larsen (Eds.), Flexible query answering systems; 9th international conference, FQAS 2011 - Ghent, Belgium, October 2011, Processings; LNAI 7022 (pp. 342–353). Heidelberg: Springer.
Gyimothy, T., Ferenc, R., & Siket, I. (2005). Empirical validation of object-oriented metrics on open source software for fault prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(10), 897–910. CrossRef
Huang, F., & Liu, B. (2013). Study on the correlations between program metrics and defect rate by a controlled experiment. Journal of Software Engineering, 7(3), 114–120. CrossRef
ISO/IEC 25010. (2011). Systems and software engineering -- systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE) -- System and software quality models.
ISO/IEC 9126-1. (2001). ISO/IEC 9126–1. Retrieved December 10, 2015, from ISO/IEC 9126–1: Software engineering -- Product quality: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=22749
ISO/IEC/IEEE. (2013). ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119 Software testing. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from The International Software Testing Standard: http://www.softwaretestingstandard.org
ISTQB. (2015). Standard glossary of terms used in software testing - all terms. Version 3.0, International software testing qualifications board, ISTQB glossary working group. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from ISTQB: http://www.istqb.org/downloads/finish/20/193.html
Jiang, Y., Cukic, B., Menzies, T., & Bartlow, N. (2008). Comparing design and code metrics for software quality prediction. Proceddings of the 4th international workshop on Predictor models in software engineering, PROMISE ‘08, 12–13 May, Leipzig, Germany (pp. 11–18). New York: ACM.
Jureczko, M. (2011). Significance of different software metrics in defect prediction. Software Engineering: An international Journal (SEIJ), 1(1), 86–95.
Kitchenham, B., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1996). Software quality: the elusive target. IEEE Software, 13(1), 12–21. CrossRef
Krusko, A. (2003). Complexity analysis of real time software—using software complexity metrics to improve the quality of real time software. Master’s Thesis in Computer Science, Stockholm, Royal Institute of Technology, KTH Numerical Analysis and Computer Science.
McCall, J. A., Richards, P. K., & Walters, G. F. (1977). Factors in software quality. Us Rome Air Development Center. National Technical Information Service.
McDonald, J. H. (2014). Handbook of biological statistics (3. ed.). Baltimore: Sparky House Publishing.
Miguel, J. P., Mauricio, D., & Rodriguez, G. (2014). A review of software quality models for the evaluation of software products. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), 5(6), 31–53. CrossRef
Nagappan, N., Ball, T., & Zeller, A. (2006). Mining metrics to predict component failures. Proceddings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, ICSE ‘06, 20–28 May, Shanghai, China (pp. 452–461). New York: ACM.
Neubauer, J., Windmüller, S., & Steffen, B. (2014). Risk-based testing via active continuous quality control. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 16(5), 569–591. CrossRef
Orsini, L. (2013). GitHub for beginners: don’t get scared, get started. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from readwrite: http://readwrite.com/2013/09/30/understanding-github-a-journey-for-beginners-part-1
Perry, W. E., & Rice, R. W. (1997). Surviving the top ten challenges of software testing: a people-oriented approach. New York: Dorset House.
PMD. (2015). PMD. Retrieved May 16, 2015, from PMD: http://pmd.sourceforge.net/
Pressman, R. S. (2010). Software engineering: a Practitioner’s approach (7. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pries, K. H., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). Testing complex and embedded systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press. MATH
Radjenovic, D., Hericko, M., Torkar, R., & Zivkovic, A. (2013). Software fault prediction metrics: a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 55(8), 1397–1418. CrossRef
Redmill, F. (2004). Exploring risk-based testing and its implications. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 14(1), 3–15. CrossRef
Redmill, F. (2005). Theory and practice of risk-based testing. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 15(1), 3–20. CrossRef
Runeson, P., & Höst, M. (2009). Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(2), 131–164. CrossRef
Sharma, A. K. (2005). Text book of correlations and regression. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.
Singh, P., Chaudhary, K. D., & Verma, S. (2011). An investigation of the relationships between software metrics and defects. International Journal of Computer Applications, 28(8), 13–17. CrossRef
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 72–101. CrossRef
Taylor, R. (1990). Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, 6(1), 35–39. CrossRef
Van Veenendaal, E. (2009). Practical risk-based testing - product RISk MAnagement: the PRISMA ® method. Improve Quality Services BV.
Van Veenendaal, E. (2012). The PRISMA approach: practical risk-based testing. UTN Publishers.
Wagner, S. (2013). Software product quality control. Berlin: Springer. CrossRef
Wagner, S., Lochmann, K., Heinemann, L., Kläs, M., Trendowicz, A., Plösch, R.,. . . Streit, J. (2012b). The Quamoco product quality modelling and assessment approach. 34th international conference on software engineering (ICSE), 2012, (pp. 1133–1142). Zürich.
Wagner, S., Lochmann, K., Winter, S., Deissenböck, F., Jürgens, E., Herrmannsdörfer, M.,. . . Kläs, M. (2012c). The Quamoco quality meta-model. Technischer Bericht TUM-I128, Technische Universität München, Institut für Informatik.
Wagner, S., Goeb, A., Heinemann, L., Kläs, M., Lampasona, C., Lochmann, K., et al. (2015). Operationalised product quality models and assessment: the Quamoco approach. Information and Software Technology, 62, 101–123. CrossRef
Wagner, S., Lochmann, K., Winter, S., Goeb, A., Kläs, M., & Nunnenmacher, S. (2012a). Software quality models in practice. Institut für Informatik, TUM-I129. Technische Universität München. Retrieved December 08, 2015, from https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1110601/1110601.pdf
Windmüller, S., Neubauer, J., Steffen, B., Howar, F., & Bauer, O. (2013). Active continuous quality control. Proceedings of the 16th International ACM Sigsoft symposium on Component-based software engineering (CBSE ‘13), June 17–21, 2013, Vancouver, BC, Canada (pp. 111–120). New York: ACM.
Zeiss, B., Vega, D., Schieferdecker, I., Neukirchen, H., & Grabowski, J. (2007). Applying the ISO 9126 quality model to test specifications - exemplified for TTCN-3 test specifications. Software Engineering, 15(6), 231–242.
Zhang, H. (2009). An investigation of the relationships between lines of code and defects. International conference on software maintenance 2009, ICSM 2009 (pp. 274–283). IEEE.
Zhang, Q., Wu, J., & Zhu, H. (2006). Tool support to model-based quality analysis of software architecture. Proceedings of the 30th annual international computer software and applications conference (COMPSAC’06) (pp. 121–128). IEEE Computer Society.
Zimmermann, T., Nagappan, N., & Zeller, A. (2008). Predicting bugs from history. In T. Mens & S. Demeyer (Eds.), Software evolution (pp. 69–88). Berlin: Springer. CrossRef
Zimmermann, T., Premraj, R., & Zeller, A. (2007). Predicting defects for eclipse. Third International Workshop on Predictor Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE’07), 20–26 May 2007 (pp. 9–16). Minneaplois: IEEE Computer Society.
- Integrating software quality models into risk-based testing
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com