SOFTWARE TESTING

DINESH CHOUDHARY¹*, VIJAY KUMAR²*
¹Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Kautilya Institute of Technology & Engineering and School of Management, Jaipur, India
²Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Stani Memorial College of Engineering & Technology, Jaipur, India
* Corresponding Author : vijay_matwa@yahoo.com

Received : -     Accepted : -     Published : 01-11-2011
Volume : 1     Issue : 1       Pages : 1 - 9
J Comput Simulat Model 1.1 (2011):1-9

Software Testing is an empirical investigation conducted to provide stakeholders with information about the quality of the product or service under test, with respect to the context in which it is intended to operate. This includes, but is not limited to, the process of executing a program or application with the intent of finding software bugs. Testing can never completely establish the correctness of computer software. Instead, it furnishes a criticism or comparison that compares the state and behavior of the product against oracles—principles or mechanisms by which someone might recognize a problem. These oracles may include (but are not limited to) specifications, comparable products, past versions of the same product, inferences about intended or expected purpose, user or customer expectations, relevant standards, applicable laws, or other criteria. Over its existence, computer software has continued to grow in complexity and size. Every software product has a target audience. For example, the audience for video game software is completely different from banking software. Therefore, when an organization develops or otherwise invests in a software product, it presumably must assess whether the software product will be acceptable to its end users, its target audience, its purchasers, and other stakeholders. Software testing is the process of attempting to make this assessment. A study conducted by NIST in 2002 reports that software bugs cost the U.S. economy $59.5 billion annually. More than a third of this cost could be avoided if better software testing was performed. A primary purpose for testing is to detect software failures so that defects may be uncovered and corrected. This is a non-trivial pursuit. Testing cannot establish that a product functions properly under all conditions but can only establish that it does not function properly under specific conditions. The scope of software testing often includes examination of code as well as execution of that code in various environments and conditions as well as examining the aspects of code: does it do what it is supposed to do and do what it needs to do. In the current culture of software development, a testing organization may be separate from the development team. There are various roles for testing team members. Information derived from software testing may be used to correct the process by which software is developed.

[1] G. Rothermel, L. Li, and M. Burnett. Testing strategies for form-based visual programs. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pages 96–107, Albuquerque, NM, November 1997  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[2] G. Rothermel, R. H. Untch, C. Chu, and M. J. Harrold. Test case prioritization: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, pages 179–188, August 1999  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[3] G. Rothermel, Roland H. Untch, Chengyun Chu, and M. J. Harrold. Prioritizing test cases for regression testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(10):929–948, October 2001a  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[4] Gregg Rothermel, Margaret Burnett, Lixin Li, Christopher Dupuis, and Andrei Sheretov. A methodology for testing spreadsheets. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 10(1):110–147, January 2001b.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[5] Karen J. Rothermel, Curtis R. Cook, Margaret M. Burnett, Justin Schonfeld, T. R. G. Green, and Gregg Rothermel. WYSIWYT testing in the spreadsheet paradigm: an empirical evaluation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 230–239. ACM Press, 2000  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[6] Andrew Sears. Layout appropriateness: A metric for evaluating user interface widget layout. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19(7):707–719, 1993  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[7] Forrest Shull, Ioana Rus, and Victor Basili. Improving software inspections by using reading techniques. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 726–727. IEEE Computer Society, 2001  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[8] Ian Sommerville. Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, 6th edition, August 2000  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[9] John Steven, Pravir Chandra, Bob Fleck, and Andy Podgurski. jRapture: A capture/replay tool for observation-based testing. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pages 158–167. ACM Press, 2000  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[10] T. Tsai and R. Iyer. Measuring fault tolerance with the FTAPE fault injection tool. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Modeling Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation, pages 26–40, 1995  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[11] Timothy K. Tsai and Navjot Singh. Reliability testing of applications on Windows NT. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, New York City, USA, June 2000  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[12] Raja Vall´ee-Rai, Laurie Hendren, Vijay Sundaresan, Patrick Lam, Etienne Gagnon, and Phong Co. Soot - a Java optimization framework. In Proceedings of CASCON 1999, pages 125–135, 1999  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[13] Jeffrey M. Voas. PIE: a dynamic failurebased technique. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 18(8):717– 735, 1992  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[14] F. Vokolos and P. Frankl. Pythia: A regression test selection tool based on textual differencing. In Third International Conference of Reliability, Quality, and Safety of Software Intensive Systems, May 1997  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[15] Elaine Weyuker. Axiomatizing software test data adequacy. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, (12): 1128–1138, December 1986  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[16] Elaine J. Weyuker, Stewart N. Weiss, and Dick Hamlet. Comparison of program testing strategies. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Testing, Analysis, and Verification, pages 1–10. ACM Press, 1991.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[17] James A. Whittaker. What is software testing? and why is it so hard? IEEE Software, 17(1):70–76, January/February 2000  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[18] James A. Whittaker and Jeffrey Voas. Toward a more reliable theory of software reliability. IEEE Computer, 32(12): 36–42, December 2000  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[19] W.E. Wong. On Mutation and Data Flow. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, December 1993  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[20] W.E.Wong, J.R. Horgan, S. London, and H. Agrawal. A study of effective regression testing in practice. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pages 230–238, November 1997.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[21] Michael Young and Richard N. Taylor. Rethinking the taxonomy of fault detection techniques. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 53–62. ACM Press, 1989  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[22] Hong Zhu, Patrick A. V. Hall, and John H. R. May. Software unit test coverage and adequacy. ACM Computing Surveys, 29(4):366–427, 1997  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus