Search

Testing is a key activity of software development and maintenance that determines the level of reliability. Traceability is the ability to describe and follow the life of software artifacts, and has been promoted as a means for supporting various activities, most importantly testing. Traceability information facilitates the testing and debugging of complex software by modeling the dependencies between code and tests. Actively supplementing traceability to testing enables rectifying defects more reliably and efficiently. Despite its importance, the development of test-to-code traceability has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature, and even worse there is currently no organized review of traceability studies in this field. In this work, we have investigated the main conferences, workshops, and journals of the requirements engineering, testing, and reliability, and identified those contributions that refer to traceability topics. From that starting point, we characterized and analyzed the chosen contributions against three research questions by utilizing a comparative framework including nine criteria. As a result, our study arrives to some interesting points, and outlines a number of potential research directions. This, in turn, can pave the way for facilitating and empowering traceability research in this domain to assist software engineers and testers in test management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Random testing is a basic software testing technique that can be used to assess the software reliability as well as to detect software failures. Adaptive random testing has been proposed to enhance the failure-detection capability of random testing. Previous studies have shown that adaptive random testing can use fewer test cases than random testing to detect the first software failure. In this paper, we evaluate and compare the performance of adaptive random testing and random testing from another perspective, that of code coverage. As shown in various investigations, a higher code coverage not only brings a higher failure-detection capability, but also improves the effectiveness of software reliability estimation. We conduct a series of experiments based on two categories of code coverage criteria: structure-based coverage, and fault-based coverage. Adaptive random testing can achieve higher code coverage than random testing with the same number of test cases. Our experimental results imply that, in addition to having a better failure-detection capability than random testing, adaptive random testing also delivers a higher effectiveness in assessing software reliability, and a higher confidence in the reliability of the software under test even when no failure is detected. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The growing dependence of society on software systems places a high premium on their reliable operation. Moreover, the stringent reliability expectations imposed on these systems must be achieved despite their increasing size and complexity, and decreasing resources available for their development and maintenance. To mitigate these dual challenges, a systematic approach to guide the allocation of resources to the components of a software system is necessary. This paper presents an optimization framework which considers the contribution of each component to system reliability to determine the amount of effort to be allocated to each component, towards the ultimate objective of achieving the specified system reliability target with minimal effort. We assume that the contribution of a component to system reliability is governed by two factors: the system architecture, and the effort-reliability relationship of the component. This characterization is referred to as “architecture-based optimization” because it considers the system architecture explicitly in the effort allocation process. It is demonstrated that the architecture-based optimization framework outperforms other effort allocation strategies, including equal component weighting, and expert opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we propose two general frameworks for deriving several software reliability growth models based on a non-homogeneous Poisson process (NHPP) in the presence of imperfect debugging and error generation. The proposed models are initially formulated for the case when there is no differentiation between failure observation and fault removal testing processes, and then extended for the case when there is a clear differentiation between failure observation and fault removal testing processes. During the last three decades, many software reliability growth models (SRGM) have been developed to describe software failures as a random process, and can be used to evaluate development status during testing. With SRGM, software engineers can easily measure (or forecast) the software reliability (or quality), and plot software reliability growth charts. It is not easy to select the best model from a plethora of models available. There are few SRGM in the literature of software engineering that differentiates between failure observation and fault removal processes. In real software development environments, the number of failures observed need not be the same as the number of faults removed. Due to the complexity of software systems, and an incomplete understanding of software, the testing team may not be able to remove the fault perfectly on observation of a failure, and the original fault may remain, resulting in a phenomenon known as imperfect debugging, or get replaced by another fault causing error generation. In the case of imperfect debugging, the fault content of the software remains the same; while in the case of error generation, the fault content increases as the testing progresses. Removal of observed faults may result in the introduction of new faults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]