1 / 8

Overview

ECE 453 – CS 447 – SE 465 Software Testing & Quality Assurance Case Studies Instructor Paulo Alencar. Overview. Investigation on how to improve the inspection process An experiment on software process improvement

dorothy-williamson
Download Presentation

Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ECE 453 – CS 447 – SE 465 Software Testing & Quality AssuranceCase StudiesInstructorPaulo Alencar

  2. Overview • Investigation on how to improve the inspection process • An experiment on software process improvement • Three case studies related to software inspections were presented (e.g., 120 participants) • The effect of group size and hands-on experience • Stalhane, T., Awan, T., Improving the Software Inspection Process, EuroSPI, LNCS 3792, pp. 163-174, 2005.

  3. Main Results • How many persons in a group identified each defect?

  4. Main Results • The probability of reporting a defect as a function of persons that found it? 4

  5. Main Results • Therefore: - If nobody had found the defect during individual inspection, there was a 10% probability that the group would find it during the meeting; - If only one person in the group found the defect there was a 50% probability that the group would report it; - If more than two persons found the defect (mostly all), the probability of reporting the defect rose to 80% and 95%. • The results motivated the authors to try to find ways to improve the inspection process. 5

  6. Main Results • Experiment 1 – Group size: the larger the group, the higher the number of defects reported (groups of size 2, 5; using or not using checklists) 6

  7. Main Results • Experiment 2 – The influence of experience and the effect on three common types of defects (high/low experience; wrong code, missing code, extra code) • Low (high) experience is better at finding missing (extra) code • First four defects: missing; next 4 extra; last four: wrong 7

  8. Main Results • General advice: • Large groups do better than small groups • Hands-on experience is important • A review must be understood as a social process • The ordering of the items in a checklist is important • Long checklists should be split into smaller checklists covering each area of concern – the fatigue effect

More Related