這篇文章只是摘錄 《 Software-Testing-And-Continuous-Quality-Improvement-Third-Edition》
Page 43 ~ 50 。
table 3.1 testing technique Categories
|
Technique
|
Manual
|
Automated
|
Static
|
Dynamic
|
Functional
|
Structural
|
|
Acceptance testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
Ad hoc testing
|
x
|
x
|
||||
|
Alpha testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Basis path testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Beta testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Black-box testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Bottom-up testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Boundary value
testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Branch coverage
testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Branch/condition
coverage
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Cause–effect graphing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Comparison testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|
|
Compatibility testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Condition coverage
testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
CRUD (create, read,
update, and delete)
testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Database testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Decision tables
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Desk checking
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
End-to-end testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Equivalence
partitioning
|
x
|
x
|
||||
|
Exception testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Exploratory testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Free-form testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Gray-box testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
Histograms
|
x
|
x
|
||||
|
Incremental
integration testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
Inspections
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
Integration testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
JADs (joint application
designs)
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Load testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
Mutation testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
© 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Continued
44 ◾ Software Testing and Continuous Quality Improvement
table 3.1 testing technique Categories (Continued)
|
Technique
|
Manual
|
Automated
|
Static
|
Dynamic
|
Functional
|
Structural
|
|
Orthogonal array
testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Pareto analysis
|
x
|
x
|
||||
|
Performance testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|
|
Positive and negative
testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Prior defect history
testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Prototyping
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Random testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Range testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Recovery testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
Regression testing
|
x
|
x
|
||||
|
Risk-based testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Run charts
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Sandwich testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Sanity testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
Security testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
State transition testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Statement coverage
testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Statistical profile
testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Stress testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Structured
walkthroughs
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
Syntax testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
System testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
Table testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Thread testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|||
|
Top-down testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
Unit testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
Usability testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
User acceptance
testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
||
|
White-box testing
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
© 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Overview of Testing Techniques ◾ 45
table 3.2 testing technique descriptions
|
Technique
|
Brief Description
|
|
Acceptance testing
|
Final testing based on the end-user/customer
specifications, or based on use by end users/
customers over a defined period of time
|
|
Ad hoc testing
|
Similar to exploratory testing, but often taken to
mean that the testers have significant
understanding of the software before testing it
|
|
Alpha testing
|
Testing of an application when development is
nearing completion; minor design changes may
still be made as a result of such testing. Typically
done by end users or others, not by programmers
or testers
|
|
Basis path testing
|
Identifying tests based on flow and paths of a
program or system
|
|
Beta testing
|
Testing when development and testing are
essentially completed and final bugs and
problems need to be found before final release.
Typically done by end users or others, not by
programmers or testers
|
|
Black-box testing
|
Testing cases generated based on the system’s
functionality
|
|
Bottom-up testing
|
Integrating modules or programs starting from the
bottom
|
|
Boundary value testing
|
Testing cases generated from boundary values of
equivalence classes
|
|
Branch coverage testing
|
Verifying that each branch has true and false
outcomes at least once
|
|
Branch/condition
coverage testing
|
Verifying that each condition in a decision takes
on all possible outcomes at least once
|
|
Cause–effect graphing
|
Mapping multiple simultaneous inputs that may
affect others, to identify their conditions to test
|
|
Comparison testing
|
Comparing software weaknesses and strengths to
competing products
|
© 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Continued
46 ◾ Software Testing and Continuous Quality Improvement
table 3.2 testing technique descriptions (Continued)
|
Technique
|
Brief Description
|
|
Compatibility testing
|
Testing how well software performs in a particular
hardware/software/operating system/network
environment
|
|
Condition coverage
testing
|
Verifying that each condition in a decision takes
on all possible outcomes at least once
|
|
CRUD testing
|
Building a CRUD matrix and testing all object
creations, reads, updates, and deletions
|
|
Database testing
|
Checking the integrity of database field values
|
|
Decision tables
|
Table showing the decision criteria and the
respective actions
|
|
Desk checking
|
Developer reviews code for accuracy
|
|
End-to-end testing
|
Similar to system testing; the “macro” end of the
test scale; involves testing of a complete
application environment in a situation that
mimics real-world use, such as interacting with a
database, using network communications, or
interacting with other hardware, applications, or
systems if appropriate
|
|
Equivalence partitioning
|
Each input condition is partitioned into two or
more groups. Test cases are generated from
representative valid and invalid classes
|
|
Exception testing
|
Identifying error messages and exception-
handling processes and conditions that trigger
them
|
|
Exploratory testing
|
Often taken to mean a creative, informal software
test that is not based on formal test plans or test
cases; testers may be learning the software as
they test it
|
|
Free-form testing
|
Ad hoc or brainstorming using intuition to define
test cases
|
|
Gray-box testing
|
A combination of black-box and white-box testing
to take advantage of both
|
|
Histograms
|
A graphical representation of measured values
organized according to the frequency of
occurrence; used to pinpoint hot spots
|
© 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Overview of Testing Techniques ◾ 47
table 3.2 testing technique descriptions (Continued)
|
Technique
|
Brief Description
|
|
Incremental integration
testing
|
Continuous testing of an application as new
functionality is added; requires that various
aspects of an application’s functionality be
independent enough to work separately before
all parts of the program are completed, or that
test drivers be developed as needed; done by
programmers or by testers
|
|
Inspections
|
Formal peer review that uses checklists, entry
criteria, and exit criteria
|
|
Integration testing
|
Testing of combined parts of an application to
determine if they function together correctly. The
“parts” can be code modules, individual
applications, or client/server applications on a
network. This type of testing is especially relevant
to client/server and distributed systems
|
|
JADs
|
Technique that brings users and developers
together to jointly design systems in facilitated
sessions
|
|
Load testing
|
Testing an application under heavy loads, such as
testing of a Web site under a range of loads to
determine at what point the system’s response
time degrades or fails
|
|
Mutation testing
|
A method for determining if a set of test data or
test cases is useful, by deliberately introducing
various code changes (“bugs”) and retesting with
the original test data/cases to determine if the
bugs are detected. Proper implementation
requires large computational resources
|
|
Orthogonal array testing
|
Mathematical technique to determine which
variations of parameters need to be tested
|
|
Pareto analysis
|
Analyze defect patterns to identify causes and
sources
|
|
Performance testing
|
Term often used interchangeably with stress and
load testing. Ideally, performance testing (and any
other type of testing) is defined in requirements
documentation or QA or Test Plans
|
© 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Continued
48 ◾ Software Testing and Continuous Quality Improvement
table 3.2 testing technique descriptions (Continued)
|
Technique
|
Brief Description
|
|
Positive and negative
testing
|
Testing the positive and negative values for all
inputs
|
|
Prior defect history
testing
|
Test cases are created or rerun for every defect
found in prior tests of the system
|
|
Prototyping
|
General approach to gather data from users by
building and demonstrating to them some part of
a potential application
|
|
Random testing
|
Technique involving random selection from a
specific set of input values where any value is as
likely as any other
|
|
Range testing
|
For each input, identifies the range over which the
system behavior should be the same
|
|
Recovery testing
|
Testing how well a system recovers from crashes,
hardware failures, or other catastrophic problems
|
|
Regression testing
|
Testing a system in light of changes made during a
development spiral, debugging, maintenance, or
the development of a new release
|
|
Risk-based testing
|
Measures the degree of business risk in a system
to improve testing
|
|
Run charts
|
A graphical representation of how a quality
characteristic varies with time
|
|
Sandwich testing
|
Integrating modules or programs from the top
and bottom simultaneously
|
|
Sanity testing
|
Typically, an initial testing effort to determine if a
new software version is performing well enough
to accept it for a major testing effort. For example,
if the new software is crashing systems every five
minutes, bogging down systems to a crawl, or
destroying databases, the software may not be in
a “sane” enough condition to warrant further
testing in its current state
|
|
Security testing
|
Testing how well the system protects against
unauthorized internal or external access, willful
damage, etc.; may require sophisticated testing
techniques
|
© 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Overview of Testing Techniques ◾ 49
table 3.2 testing technique descriptions (Continued)
|
Technique
|
Brief Description
|
|
State transition testing
|
Technique in which the states of a system are first
identified, and then test cases written to test the
triggers causing a transition from one state to
another
|
|
Statement coverage
testing
|
Every statement in a program is executed at least
once
|
|
Statistical profile testing
|
Statistical techniques are used to develop a usage
profile of the system that helps define transaction
paths, conditions, functions, and data tables
|
|
Stress testing
|
Term often used interchangeably with load and
performance testing. Also used to describe such
tests as system functional testing while under
unusually heavy loads, heavy repetition of certain
actions or inputs, input of large numerical values,
or large complex queries to a database system
|
|
Structured
walkthroughs
|
A technique for conducting a meeting at which
project participants examine a work product for
errors
|
|
Syntax testing
|
Data-driven technique to test combinations of
input syntax
|
|
System testing
|
Black-box type testing that is based on overall
requirements specifications; covers all combined
parts of a system
|
|
Table testing
|
Testing access, security, and data integrity of table
entries
|
|
Thread testing
|
Combining individual units into threads of
functionality that together accomplish a function
or set of functions
|
|
Top-down testing
|
Integrating modules or programs starting from the
top
|
© 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Continued
50 ◾ Software Testing and Continuous Quality Improvement
table 3.2 testing technique descriptions (Continued)
|
Technique
|
Brief Description
|
|
Unit testing
|
The most “micro” scale of testing; to test particular
functions or code modules. Typically done by the
programmer and not by testers, as it requires
detailed knowledge of the internal program
design and code. Not always easily done unless
the application has a well-designed architecture
with tight code; may require developing test
driver modules or test harnesses
|
|
Usability testing
|
Testing for “user-friendliness.” Clearly, this is
subjective, and will depend on the targeted end
user or customer. User interviews, surveys, video
recording of user sessions, and other techniques
can be used. Programmers and testers are usually
not appropriate as usability testers
|
|
User acceptance testing
|
Determining if software is satisfactory to an end
user or customer
|
|
White-box testing
|
Test cases are defined by examining the logic paths
of a system
|
