This book is written for the test analyst who wants to achieve advanced skills in test analysis, It's written by Rex Black--a god in the world of software testing. Editorial Reviews. About the Author. With over 30 years of software and systems engineering 1, 2nd Edition: Guide to the ISTQB Advanced Certification as an Advanced Test Analyst - site edition by Rex Black. Download it once I picked up this book for self study for the ISTQB advanced test analyst exam. I passed the. 3: Guide to the ISTQB Advanced Certification as an Advanced Technical Test Analyst Rex Black and Jamie L Mitchell did a good combination in this book!.
|Language:||English, French, Hindi|
|ePub File Size:||24.45 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.30 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Advanced software testing: guide to the ISTQB advanced certification as an advanced with related materials in the corresponding Advanced Test Analyst book and . To Rex Black for giving me a chance to coauthor the Advanced Technical. by. Rex Black. · Rating details · ratings · 6 reviews. This book is written for the test analyst who wants to achieve advanced skills in test analysis, design, . 1 by Rex Black Publisher: Rocky Nook Pub Date: October 15 Print ISBN: . As such, this book can help you prepare for ISTQB Advanced Level Test.
With over thirty years of software and systems engineering experience, author Rex Black is President of RBCS, is a leader in software, hardware, and systems testing, and is the most prolific author practicing in the field of software testing today. He has published a dozen books on testing that have sold tens of thousands of copies worldwide.
Included are sample exam questions, at the appropriate level of difficulty, for most of the learning objectives covered by the ISTQB Advanced Level Syllabus. With about , certificate holders and a global presence in over 50 countries, you can be confident in the value and international stature that the Advanced Test Manager certificate can offer you.
For 20 years, RBCS has delivered consulting, outsourcing, and training services in the areas of software, hardware, and systems testing and quality. Employing the industry's most experienced and recognized consultants, RBCS conducts product testing, builds and improves testing groups, and provides testing staff for hundreds of clients worldwide.
Ranging from Fortune 20 companies to start-ups, RBCS clients save time and money through higher quality, improved product development, decreased tech support calls, improved reputation, and more. As the leader of RBCS, Rex is the most prolific author practicing in the field of software testing today.
His popular first book, Managing the Testing Process, has sold over , copies around the world, including Japanese, Chinese, and Indian releases, and is now in its third edition. His 11 other books on testing, Advanced Software Testing: He has written over 50 articles, presented hundreds of papers, workshops, and seminars, and given about 75 keynote and other speeches at conferences and events around the world.
Rating details. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Advanced Software Testing, Volume 1 , please sign up.
Be the first to ask a question about Advanced Software Testing, Volume 1. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Dec 30, Riccardo rated it liked it.
The book is specifically designed for personal self-study and provides all the necessary information required to pass the Certified Tester Advanced Level exam as defined by the ISTQB. The book is worth downloading mainly for the sample exam questions. View 1 comment. Jan 18, Kevin rated it liked it Shelves: I passed the exam by reading this book, but I haven't practices most of the exercises in each chapter, so I plan to get back to those specially for test analysis techniques.
View 2 comments. Sep 14, Stefan Teixeira rated it liked it. It's a certification prep book, but the chapters about testing techniques are really great and it's valuable information for everyone who works with software testing.
Aug 18, Slavi rated it it was amazing. Jan 06, Steve Lindo rated it it was ok. Too many words. Alev Haddadieh rated it it was amazing Jan 17, Dieu rated it it was amazing Aug 17, Prakash Kutty rated it really liked it Dec 13, Viktor Malafey rated it liked it Dec 20, Diganta rated it really liked it Jan 10, Those are covered more extensively in another volume in this series on technical test analysis.
Static Tests Now, let's review three important ideas from the Foundation syllabus. One is the value of static testing early in the lifecycle to catch defects when they are cheap and easy to fix. The next is the preventive role testing can play when involved early in the lifecycle.
The last is that testing should be involved early in the project. These three ideas are related because test analysis and design is a form of static testing, it is synergistic with other forms of static testing, and we can exploit that synergy only if we are involved at the right time.
In fact, you could prepare for a requirements review meeting by doing test analysis and design on the requirements. Test analysis and design can serve as a structured, failure-focused static test of a requirements specification generating useful inputs to a requirements review meeting. Of course, we should also take advantage of the ideas of static testing and, the early involvement if we can, to have test and non test stakeholders participate in reviews of various test work products, including risk analyses, test designs, test cases, and test plans.
We should also use appropriate static analysis techniques on these work products. Let's look at an example of how test analysis can serve as a static test. Suppose you are following an analytical risk-based testing strategy. If so, then, in addition to quality risk items —which are the test conditions—a typical quality risk analysis session can provide other useful deliverables.
I refer to these additional useful deliverables as by-products, along the lines of industrial by- products, in that they are generated by the way as you create the target work product, which in this case is a quality risk analysis document. These by-products are generated when you and the other participants in the quality risk analysis process notice aspects of the project you haven't considered before.
These by-products include the following: Project risks—things that could happen and endanger the success of the project Identification of defects in the requirements specification, design specification, or other documents used as inputs into the quality risk analysis A list of implementation assumptions and simplifications, which can improve the design as well as set up checkpoints you can use to ensure your risk analysis is aligned with actual implementation later By directing these by-products to the appropriate members of the project team, you can prevent defects from escaping to later stages of the software lifecycle.
That's always a good thing. A document specifying a sequence of actions for the execution of a test. Also known as test script or manual test script. Commonly used to refer to a test procedure specification, especially an automated one. Metrics To close this section, let's look at metrics and measurements for test analysis and design.
To measure completeness of this portion of the test process, we can measure the following: Percentage of requirements or quality product risks covered by test conditions Percentage of test conditions covered by test cases Number of defects found during test analysis and design We can track test analysis and design tasks against a work breakdown structure, which is useful in determining whether we are proceeding according to the estimate and schedule. Test Implementation and Execution Learning objectives K2 Describe the preconditions for test execution, including: Test implementation includes all the remaining tasks necessary to enable test case execution to begin.
At this point, remember, we have done our analysis and design work, so what remains? For one thing, if we intend to use explicitly specified test procedures—rather than relying on the tester's knowledge of the system—we'll need to organize the test cases into test procedures or test scripts. When I say, "organize the test cases," I mean, at the very least, document the steps to carry out the test.
How much detail do we put in these procedures? Well, the same considerations that lead to more or less detail at the test condition and test case level would apply here. For example, if a regulatory standard like the United States Federal Aviation Administration's DOB applies, that's going to require a high level of detail. Because testing frequently requires test data for both inputs and the test environment itself, we need to make sure that data is available now.
In addition, we must set up the test environments. Are both the test data and the test environments in a state such that we can use them for testing now? If not, we must resolve that problem before test execution starts. In some cases test data requires the use of data generation tools or production data.
Ensuring proper test environment configuration can require the use of configuration management tools. With the test procedures in hand, we need to put together a test execution schedule. Who is to run the tests?
In what order should they run them? What environments are needed for what tests? We need to answer these questions. Finally, because we're about to start test execution, we need to check whether all explicit and implicit entry criteria are met. If not, we need to work with project stakeholders to make sure they are met before the scheduled test execution start date. Now, keep in mind that you should prioritize and schedule the test procedures to ensure that you achieve the objectives in the test strategy in the most efficient way.
For example, in risk-based testing, we usually try to run tests in risk priority order. Of course, real-world constraints like availability of test configurations can change that order.
Core Study Materials
Efficiency considerations like the amount of data or environment restoration that must happen after a test is over can change that order too. Let's look more closely at two key areas, readiness of test procedures and readiness of test environments.
Let's examine some of the issues we need to address before we know the answer. As mentioned earlier, we must have established clear sequencing for the test procedures. This includes identifying who is to run the test procedure, when, in what test environment, with what data.
We have to evaluate constraints that might require tests to run in a particular order. Suppose we have a sequence of test procedures that together make up an end-to-end workflow? There are probably business rules that govern the order in which those test procedures must run.
So, based on all the practical considerations as well as the theoretical ideal of test procedure order—from most important to least important—we need to finalize the order of the test procedures. That includes confirming that order with the test team and other stakeholders. In the process of confirming the order of test procedures, you might find that the order you think you should follow is in fact impossible or perhaps unacceptably less efficient than some other possible sequencing.
We also might have to take steps to enable test automation. Of course, I say, "might have to take steps" rather than "must take steps" because not all test efforts involve automation.
If some tests are automated, we'll have to determine how those fit into the test sequence. It's real easy for automated tests, if run in the same environment as manual tests, to damage or corrupt test data, sometimes in a way that causes both the manual and automated tests to generate huge numbers of false positives and false negatives.
Guess what? That means you get to run the tests all over again. We don't want that!
Now, the Advanced syllabus says that we will create the test harness and test scripts during test implementation. Well, that's theoretically true, but as a practical matter you really need the test harness ready weeks, if not months, before you start to use it to automate test scripts. We definitely need to know all the test procedure dependencies. If we find that there are reasons why—due to these dependencies—we can't run the test procedures in the sequence we established earlier, we have two choices: One, we can change the sequence to fit the various obstacles we have discovered, or, two, we can remove the obstacles.
Let's look more closely at two very common categories of test procedure dependencies— and thus obstacles.
See a Problem?
The first is the test environment. You need to know what is required for each test procedure. Now, check to see if that environment will be available during the time you have that test procedure scheduled to run.
Notice that "available" means not only is the test environment configured, but also no other test procedure—or any other test activity for that matter—that would interfere with the test procedure under consideration is scheduled to use that test environment during the same period of time. The interference question is usually where the obstacles emerge. I worked on a project a while back that was so complex I had to construct a special database to track, report, and manage the relationships between test procedures and the test environments they required.
The second category of test procedure dependencies is the test data. You need to know what data each test procedure requires. Now, similar to the process before, check to see if that data will be available during the time you have that test procedure scheduled to run.
As before, "available" means not only is the test data created, but also no other test procedure —or any other test activity for that matter—that would interfere with the viability and accessibility of the data is scheduled to use that test data during the same period of time.
With test data, interference is again often a large issue. I had a client who tried to run manual tests during the day and automated tests overnight. This resulted in lots of problems until a process was evolved to properly restore the data at the handover points between manual testing and automated testing at the end of the day and between automated testing and manual testing at the start of the day.
Test Environment Readiness Are the test environments ready to use? First, let's make clear the importance of a properly configured test environment. If we run the test procedures perfectly but use a misconfigured test environment, we obtain useless test results.
Specifically, we get many false positives. A false positive in software testing is analogous to one in medicine—a test that should have passed instead fails, leading to wasted time analyzing "defects" that turn out to be test environment problems. Often the false positives are so large in number that we also get false negatives, which is where a test that should have failed instead passes, often in this case because we didn't see it hiding among the false positives. The overall outcome is very low defect detection effectiveness; very high field or production failure rates; very high defect report rejection rates; a lot of wasted time for testers, managers, and developers; and a severe loss of credibility for the test team.
Need I say more about how bad this is? So, we have to ensure properly configured test environments. As with automation, though, I feel this is probably too late, at least if we think of implementation as an activity that starts after analysis and design. If, instead, we think of implementation of the test environment as a subset of the overall implementation activity, and one that can start as soon as the test plan is done, then we are in better shape.
What is a properly configured test environment and what does it do for us? For one thing, a properly configured test environment enables finding defects under the test conditions we intend to run. For example, if we want to test for performance, it allows us to find unexpected bottlenecks that would slow down the system. For another thing, a properly configured test environment operates normally when failures are not occurring. In other words, it doesn't generate many false positives.
Additionally, at higher levels of testing such as system test and system integration test, a properly configured test environment replicates the production or end-user environment. Many defects, especially non functional defects like performance and reliability problems, are hard if not impossible to find in scaled-down environments.
There are some other things we need for a properly configured test environment. We'll need someone to set up and support the environment. For complex environments, this is usually someone outside the test team. We also need to make sure that someone—perhaps a tester, perhaps someone else—has loaded the testware, test support tools, and associated processes on the test environment. Test support tools include, at the least, configuration management, incident management, test logging, and test management.
Also at the very least you'll need procedures to gather data for exit criteria evaluation and test results reporting. Ideally, your test management system will handle some of that for you. A chronological record of relevant details about the execution of tests. The process of recording information about tests executed into a test log. Blended Test Strategies It is often a good idea to use a blend of test strategies, leading to balanced test approach, throughout testing, including during test implementation.
For example, when my associates and I run test projects, we typically blend analytical risk-based test strategies with dynamic test strategies. We reserve some percentage often 10 to 20 percent of the test execution effort for testing that does not follow predetermined scripts. Analytical strategies follow the ISTQB fundamental test process nicely, with work products produced along the way.
However, the risk with blended strategies is that the reactive portion can get out of control. Testing without scripts should not be ad hoc or aimless. Such tests are unpredictable in duration and coverage.
Advanced Software Testing - Vol. 2, 2nd Edition: Guide to the ISTQB Advanced ...
Some techniques like session-based test management, which we'll look at later, can help deal with that inherent control problem in reactive strategies. In addition, to structure reactive test strategies, we can use experience-based test techniques such as attacks, error guessing, and exploratory testing.
We'll discuss these topics further in chapter 4. The common trait of a reactive test strategy is that we—for the most part—react to the actual system presented to us. This means that test analysis, test design, and test implementation occur primarily during test execution. In other words, reactive test strategies allow—indeed, require—that the results of each test influence the analysis, design, and implementation of the subsequent tests.
As discussed in the Foundation syllabus, these reactive strategies are lightweight in terms of total effort both before and during test execution. Experience-based test techniques are often effective at finding bugs, sometimes 5 or 10 times more so than scripted techniques.
However, being experience based, naturally enough, they require expert testers. As I mentioned earlier, reactive test strategies result in test execution periods that are sometimes unpredictable in duration. Their lightweight nature means they don't provide much coverage information and are difficult to repeat for regression testing.
Some claim that tools can address this coverage and repeatability problem, but I've never seen that work in actual practice. That said, when reactive test strategies are blended with analytical test strategies, they tend to balance each other's weak spots.
An analogy for this is blended scotch whiskey. Blended scotch whiskey consists of malt whiskey—either a single malt or more frequently a blend of various malt whiskeys—further blended with grain alcohol basically, vodka.
Starting Test Execution We've now come to the point where we're ready to start test execution.
To do so, we need the delivery of the test object or objects and the satisfaction or waiver of entry criteria. Of course, this presumes that the entry criteria alone are enough to ensure that the various necessary implementation tasks discussed earlier in this section are complete. If not, then we have to go back and check those issues of test data, test environments, test dependencies, and so forth.
Now, during test execution, people will run the manual test cases via the test procedures. To execute a test procedure to completion, we would expect that at least two things had happened. First, we covered all of the test conditions or quality risk items traceable to the test procedure.
Second, we carried out all of the steps of the test procedure. You might ask, "How could I carry out the test procedure without covering all the risks or conditions? In that case, you would need to understand what the test was about and augment the written test procedure with on-the-fly details that ensure you cover the right areas.
You might also ask, "How could I cover all the risks and conditions without carrying out the entire test procedure? For example, some steps set up data or other preconditions, some steps capture logging information, and some steps restore the system to a known good state at the end. A third kind of activity can apply during manual test execution. We can incorporate some degree of exploratory testing into the procedures. One way to accomplish this to leave the procedures somewhat vague and to tell the tester to select their favorite way of carrying out a certain task.
Another way is to tell the testers, as I often do, that a test script is a road map to interesting places and, when they get somewhere interesting, they should stop and look around. This has the effect of giving them permission to transcend, to go beyond, the scripts.
I've found it very effective. Finally, during execution, tools will run automated tests. These tools follow the defined scripts without deviation. That can seem like an unalloyed "good thing" at first. However, if we did not design the scripts properly, that can mean that the script get out of sync with the system under test and generate a bunch of false positives. If you read the volume on technical test analysis, I'll talk more about that problem—and how to solve it.
Running a Single Test Procedure Let's zoom in on the act of a tester running a single test procedure. After the logistical issues of initial setup are handled, the tester starts running the specific steps of the test. These yield actual results. Now we have come to the heart of test execution. We compare actual results with expected results. This is indeed the moment when testing either adds value or removes value from the project. Everything up to this point—all of the work designing and implementing our tests— was about getting us to this point.
Everything after this point is about using the value this comparison has delivered. Because this is so critical, so central to good testing, attention and focus on your part is essential at this moment. So, what if we notice a mismatch between the expected results and the actual results? The ISTQB glossary refers to each difference between the expected results and the actual results as an anomaly.
There can be multiple differences, and thus multiple anomalies, in a mismatch. When we observe an anomaly, we have an incident. Some incidents are failures. A failure occurs when the system misbehaves due to one or more defects. This is the ideal situation when an incident has occurred. If we are looking at a failure, a symptom of a true defect, we should start to gather data to help the developer resolve the defect. We'll talk more about incident reporting and management in detail in chapter 7.
Some incidents are not failures but rather are false positives. False positives occur when the expected and actual results don't match due to bad test specifications, invalid test data, incorrectly configured test environments, a simple mistake on the part of the person running the test, and so forth. If we can catch a false positive right away, the moment it happens, the damage is limited.
The tester should fix the test, which might involve some configuration management work if the tests are checked into a repository. The tester should then rerun the test. Thus, the damage done was limited to the tester's wasted time along with the possible impact of that lost time on the schedule plus the time needed to fix the test plus the time needed to rerun the test.
All of those activities, all of that lost time, and the impact on the schedule would have happened even if the tester had simply assumed the failure was valid and reported it as such. It just would have happened later, after an additional loss of time on the part of managers, other testers, developers, and so forth.
Here's a cautionary note on these false positives too. Just because a test has never yielded a false positive before, in all the times it has been run before, doesn't mean you're not looking at one this time. Changes in the test basis, the proper expected results, the test object, and so forth can obsolete or invalidate a test specification.
Logging Test Results Most testers like to run tests—at least the first few times they run them—but sometimes they don't always like to log results. If you are one of those testers, get over it. I then said that everything after that point is about using the value the comparison delivered. Well, you can't use the value if you don't capture it, and the test logs are about capturing the value.
So, remember that, as testers run tests, testers log results. Failure to log results means either doing the test over most likely or losing the value of running the tests.
When you do the test over, that is pure waste, a loss of your time running the test. Because test execution is usually on the critical path for project completion, that waste puts the planned project end date at risk.
People don't like that much. A side note here, before we move on: I mentioned reactive test strategies and the problems they have with coverage earlier.
Note that, with adequate logging, while you can't ascertain reactive test coverage in advance, at least you can capture it afterwards. So, again, log your results, both for scripted and unscripted tests. During test execution, there are many moving parts. The test cases might be changing. The test object and each constituent test item are often changing. The test environment might be changing. The test basis might be changing. So, logging should identify the versions tested.
The military strategist Clausewitz referred famously to the "fog of war. Clausewitz would recognize his famous fog if he were to come back to life and work as a tester. Test execution periods tend to have a lot of fog. Good test logs are the fog-cutter. Test logs should provide a detailed, rich chronology of test execution. To do so, test logs need to be test-by-test and event-by-event.
Each test, uniquely identified, should have status information logged against it as it goes through the test execution period. This information should support not only understanding the overall test status but also the overall test coverage. You should also log events that occur during test execution and affect the test execution process, whether directly or indirectly. We should document anything that delays, interrupts, or blocks testing.
Test analysts are not always also test managers, but they should work closely with the test managers. Test managers need logging information for test control, test progress reporting, and test process improvement. Test analysts need logging information too, along with the test managers, for measurement of exit criteria, which we'll cover in the next section.
A test management task that deals with developing and applying a set of corrective actions to get a test project on track when monitoring shows a deviation from what was planned. Finally, let me point out that the extent, type, and details of test logs will vary based on the test level, the test strategy, the test tools, and various standards and regulations.
Automated component testing results in the automated test gathering logging information. Manual acceptance testing usually involves the test manager compiling the test logs or at least collating the information coming from the testers.
If we're testing regulated, safety- critical systems like pharmaceutical systems, we might have to log certain information for audit purposes. Use of Amateur Testers Amateur testers. This phrase is rather provocative, so let me explain what I mean. A person who primarily works as a tester to earn her living is a professional tester. Anyone else engaged in testing is an amateur tester. I am a professional tester now, and have been since Before that, I was a professional programmer.
Advanced Software Testing - Vol. 2, 2nd Edition (2nd ed.)
I still write programs from time to time, but I'm now an amateur programmer. I make many typical amateur-programmer mistakes when I do it. Before I was a professional tester, I unit-tested my code as a programmer.
I made many typical amateur-tester mistakes when I did that. Because one of the companies I worked for as a programmer relied entirely on programmer unit testing, that sometimes resulted in embarrassing outcomes for our customers—and for me. There's nothing wrong with involving amateur testers.
Sometimes, we want to use amateur testers such as users or customers during test execution. It's important to understand what we're trying to accomplish with this and why it will or won't work. For example, often the objective is to build user confidence in the system, but that can backfire! Suppose we involve them too early, when the system is still full of bugs. Standards Let's look at some standards that relate to implementation and execution as well as to other parts of the test process.
Let's start with the IEEE standard. Most of this material about IEEE should be a review of the Foundation syllabus for you, but it might be a while since you've looked at it.
A test procedure specification describes how to run one or more test cases. Test procedure specification identifier Purpose e. A test procedure is sometimes referred to as a test script. A test script can be manual or automated.
The IEEE standard for test documentation also includes ideas on what to include in a test log. According to the standard, a test log should record the relevant details about test execution. Test log identifier. Description of the testing, including the items under test with version numbers , the test environments being used, and the like. Activity and event entries.
These should be test-by-test and event-by-event. Events include things like test environments becoming unavailable, people being out sick, and so forth.
You should capture information on the test execution process; the results of the tests; environmental changes or issues; bugs, incidents, or anomalies observed; the testers involved; any suspension or blockage of testing; changes to the plan and the impact of change; and so forth. It has two main sections, test design techniques, and test measurement techniques. For test design, it reviews a wide range of techniques, including black-box, white-box, and others.
It covers the following black-box techniques that were also covered in the Foundation syllabus: Equivalence partitioning Boundary value analysis State transition testing It also covers a black-box technique called cause-effect graphing, which is a graphical version of a decision table, and a black-box technique called syntax testing. It covers the following white-box techniques that were also covered in the Foundation syllabus: Statement testing Branch and decision testing It also covers some additional white-box techniques that were covered only briefly or not at all in the Foundation syllabus: The section on other testing techniques doesn't provide any examples but merely talks about rules on how to select them.
You might be thinking, "Hey, wait a minute, that was too fast. First, any test design technique that was on the Foundation syllabus, you had better know it. It's fair for the Advanced Level Test Analyst exam. Second, we'll cover the new test design techniques that might be on the Advanced Level Test Analyst exam in detail in chapter 4.
The choice of organization is curious indeed because there is no clear reason why the coverage metrics weren't covered at the same time as the design techniques. However, from the point of view of the ISTQB fundamental test process, perhaps it is easier that way. For example, our entry criteria might require some particular level of test coverage, as it would if we were testing safety-critical avionics software subject to the United States Federal Aviation Administration's standard DOB.
I'll cover that standard in a moment. So, during test design, we would employ the test design techniques. During test implementation, we would use the test measurement techniques to ensure adequate coverage. In addition to these two major sections, this document also includes two annexes. Annex B brings the dry material in the first two major sections to life by showing an example of applying them to realistic situations. Annex A covers process considerations, which is perhaps closest to our area of interest here.
It discusses the application of the standard to a test project, following a test process given in the document. Note, though, that the ISTQB process includes that as part of a larger activity, test implementation and execution. In Europe, it's called EDB. The standard assigns a criticality level, based on the potential impact of a failure. Based on the criticality level, a certain level of white-box test coverage is required, as shown in table Table Decision, Decision, and Statement Level B: Level C: Major Software failure can result in a major Statement failure of the system.
Level D: Minor Software failure can result in a minor None failure of the system. Level E: No effect Software failure cannot have an effect on None the system.
Let me explain table a bit more thoroughly: Criticality level A, or Catastrophic, applies when a software failure can result in a catastrophic failure of the system. Criticality level B, or Hazardous and Severe, applies when a software failure can result in a hazardous, severe, or major failure of the system.
For software with such criticality, the standard requires Decision and Statement coverage. Criticality level C, or Major, applies when a software failure can result in a major failure of the system. For software with such criticality, the standard requires only Statement coverage.
Criticality level D, or Minor, applies when a software failure can only result in a minor failure of the system. For software with such criticality, the standard does not require any level of coverage.
Finally, criticality level E, or No Effect, applies when a software failure cannot have an effect on the system. This makes a certain amount of sense. You should be more concerned about software that affects flight safety, such as rudder and aileron control modules, than you are about software that doesn't, such as video entertainment systems. However, there is a risk of using a one-dimensional white-box measuring stick to determine how much confidence we should have in a system.
Coverage metrics are a measure of confidence, it's true, but we should use multiple coverage metrics, both white-box and black-box. By the way, if you found this a bit confusing, note that all of the white-box coverage metrics I mentioned were discussed in the Foundation syllabus, in chapter 4. If you don't remember what they mean, you should go back and review the material in that chapter on white-box coverage metrics. Metrics Finally, what metrics and measurements can we use for the test implementation and execution of the ISTQB fundamental test process?
Different people use different metrics, of course. Typical metrics during test implementation are the percentage of test environments configured, the percentage of test data records loaded, and the percentage of test cases automated.Of course, this presumes that the entry criteria alone are enough to ensure that the various necessary implementation tasks discussed earlier in this section are complete. Arpitha rated it it was amazing Mar 23, Failure of such a system—or even temporary performance or reliability degradation or undesirable side effects as support actions are carried out—can injure or kill people, or, in the case of military systems, fail to injure or kill people at a battle-critical juncture.
Nazar Kulchytskyi rated it really liked it May 27, Direct access to the exam questions would make it all too likely that, consciously or unconsciously, I would warp our training materials to "teach the exam. Because I've been talking a lot about requirements, you might assume that the oracle problem applies only to high-level test levels like system test and acceptance test.
Can't the two overlap? You'll be able to describe and organize the necessary activities as well as learn to select, acquire, and assign adequate resources for testing tasks. The standard assigns a criticality level, based on the potential impact of a failure.
- MAQ SOFTWARE PLACEMENT PAPERS 2011 DOWNLOAD
- WHEEL OF TIME EYE OF THE WORLD PDF
- HVAC DUCT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS METAL AND FLEXIBLE 3RD EDITION PDF
- MARRIAGE BARGAIN PDF
- TALLY ERP 9 STUDY MATERIAL PDF
- CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY KENNETH GUEST PDF
- SAE J2012 PDF
- EDGE OF THE EMPIRE DANGEROUS COVENANTS PDF
- PART OF SPEECH PDF
- PANASONIC TZ10 MANUAL PDF
- MIJN LEVEN IN DE HEL EPUB
- ASTM A694 EBOOK DOWNLOAD
- CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ VOM KRIEGE PDF
- MODERN PORTFOLIO THEORY AND INVESTMENT ANALYSIS PDF