Error guessing is an ad hoc approach, based on intuition and experience, to identify tests that are considered likely to expose errors. The basic idea is to make a list of possible errors or error-prone situations and then develop tests based on the list. What are the most common error-prone situations we have seen before? Defects’ histories are useful. There is a high probability that defects that have been there in the past are the kind that are going to be there in the future. Some items to try are: · empty or null lists/strings · zero instances/occurrences · blanks or null characters in strings · negative numbers One of the studies done by Myers (1979) states that the probability of errors remaining in the program is proportional to the number of errors that have been found so far. This alone provides a rich source of focus for productive error guessing.
It is an alternative form of Testing, where some colleagues were invited to examine your work products for defects and improvement opportunities. Some Peer review approaches are, Inspection – It is a more systematic and rigorous type of peer review. Inspections are more effective at finding defects than are informal reviews.Ex : In Motorola’s Iridium project nearly 80% of the defects were detected through inspections where only 60% of the defects were detected through informal reviews. Team Reviews – It is a planned and structured approach but less formal and less rigorous comparing to Inspections. Walkthrough – It is an informal review because the work product’s author describes it to some colleagues and asks for suggestions. Walkthroughs are informal because they typically do not follow a defined procedure, do not specify exit criteria, require no management reporting, and generate no metrics. Pair Programming – In Pair Programming, two developers work together on the same program at...
Comments