An objective comparison of the cost effectiveness of three testing methods
Branch testing is a well established method for exercising software. JJ-path testing, whilst employed by some practitioners, is less popular, and the testing of JJ-pairs finds few adherents. In this paper an objective, practical study of the cost-effectiveness of these three testing methods is repor...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Information and software technology 2007-09, Vol.49 (9), p.1045-1060 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1060 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 1045 |
| container_title | Information and software technology |
| container_volume | 49 |
| creator | Yates, D.F. Malevris, N. |
| description | Branch testing is a well established method for exercising software. JJ-path testing, whilst employed by some practitioners, is less popular, and the testing of JJ-pairs finds few adherents. In this paper an objective, practical study of the cost-effectiveness of these three testing methods is reported. The effectiveness of each method is assessed, in the presence of infeasible paths, not only on its ability to cover the specific structural element of code that it targets, but also on its ability to cover the structural elements targeted by the other two methods – the collateral coverage it achieves. The assessment is based on the results derived from experiments in which each of the three methods is applied to 35 units of program code. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.infsof.2006.10.009 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_196422708</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0950584906001807</els_id><sourcerecordid>1304033821</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-aece69a9b0b3f36b5fc3324696d1e4c644ff43c4f583630f1cdc4ca3de0e4d243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKxDAUhoMoOF7ewEVx33rSpJlmIwyDVwbc6Dq0yYmT4jRjkhnw7U2pa1eBL_-5fYTcUKgoUHE3VG600duqBhAZVQDyhCxou2SlgLo5JQuQDZRNy-U5uYhxAKBLYLAgr6ux8P2AOrkjFtrv9l1w0Wdoi7SdSEwFWjsHRoxx_gmIRcKY3PhZ7DBtvYlX5Mx2XxGv_95L8vH48L5-LjdvTy_r1abUjLFUdqhRyE720DPLRN_YzGsupDAUuRacW8uZ5rZpmWBgqTaa644ZBOSm5uyS3M5998F_H_IOavCHMOaRikrB63oJbQ7xOaSDjzGgVfvgdl34URTUJE0NapamJmkTzdJy2f1chvmAo8OgonY4ajQuZAXKePd_g18uYXgw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>196422708</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An objective comparison of the cost effectiveness of three testing methods</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Yates, D.F. ; Malevris, N.</creator><creatorcontrib>Yates, D.F. ; Malevris, N.</creatorcontrib><description>Branch testing is a well established method for exercising software. JJ-path testing, whilst employed by some practitioners, is less popular, and the testing of JJ-pairs finds few adherents. In this paper an objective, practical study of the cost-effectiveness of these three testing methods is reported. The effectiveness of each method is assessed, in the presence of infeasible paths, not only on its ability to cover the specific structural element of code that it targets, but also on its ability to cover the structural elements targeted by the other two methods – the collateral coverage it achieves. The assessment is based on the results derived from experiments in which each of the three methods is applied to 35 units of program code.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0950-5849</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6025</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2006.10.009</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Branch testing ; Collateral coverage ; Comparative analysis ; Cost-effectiveness ; Effectiveness ; JJ-pair testing ; JJ-path testing ; Software ; Structural testing ; Studies ; Test methods ; White box testing</subject><ispartof>Information and software technology, 2007-09, Vol.49 (9), p.1045-1060</ispartof><rights>2006 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Sep 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-aece69a9b0b3f36b5fc3324696d1e4c644ff43c4f583630f1cdc4ca3de0e4d243</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-aece69a9b0b3f36b5fc3324696d1e4c644ff43c4f583630f1cdc4ca3de0e4d243</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584906001807$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yates, D.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malevris, N.</creatorcontrib><title>An objective comparison of the cost effectiveness of three testing methods</title><title>Information and software technology</title><description>Branch testing is a well established method for exercising software. JJ-path testing, whilst employed by some practitioners, is less popular, and the testing of JJ-pairs finds few adherents. In this paper an objective, practical study of the cost-effectiveness of these three testing methods is reported. The effectiveness of each method is assessed, in the presence of infeasible paths, not only on its ability to cover the specific structural element of code that it targets, but also on its ability to cover the structural elements targeted by the other two methods – the collateral coverage it achieves. The assessment is based on the results derived from experiments in which each of the three methods is applied to 35 units of program code.</description><subject>Branch testing</subject><subject>Collateral coverage</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Cost-effectiveness</subject><subject>Effectiveness</subject><subject>JJ-pair testing</subject><subject>JJ-path testing</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Structural testing</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Test methods</subject><subject>White box testing</subject><issn>0950-5849</issn><issn>1873-6025</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtKxDAUhoMoOF7ewEVx33rSpJlmIwyDVwbc6Dq0yYmT4jRjkhnw7U2pa1eBL_-5fYTcUKgoUHE3VG600duqBhAZVQDyhCxou2SlgLo5JQuQDZRNy-U5uYhxAKBLYLAgr6ux8P2AOrkjFtrv9l1w0Wdoi7SdSEwFWjsHRoxx_gmIRcKY3PhZ7DBtvYlX5Mx2XxGv_95L8vH48L5-LjdvTy_r1abUjLFUdqhRyE720DPLRN_YzGsupDAUuRacW8uZ5rZpmWBgqTaa644ZBOSm5uyS3M5998F_H_IOavCHMOaRikrB63oJbQ7xOaSDjzGgVfvgdl34URTUJE0NapamJmkTzdJy2f1chvmAo8OgonY4ajQuZAXKePd_g18uYXgw</recordid><startdate>20070901</startdate><enddate>20070901</enddate><creator>Yates, D.F.</creator><creator>Malevris, N.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070901</creationdate><title>An objective comparison of the cost effectiveness of three testing methods</title><author>Yates, D.F. ; Malevris, N.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-aece69a9b0b3f36b5fc3324696d1e4c644ff43c4f583630f1cdc4ca3de0e4d243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Branch testing</topic><topic>Collateral coverage</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Cost-effectiveness</topic><topic>Effectiveness</topic><topic>JJ-pair testing</topic><topic>JJ-path testing</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Structural testing</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Test methods</topic><topic>White box testing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yates, D.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malevris, N.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Information and software technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yates, D.F.</au><au>Malevris, N.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An objective comparison of the cost effectiveness of three testing methods</atitle><jtitle>Information and software technology</jtitle><date>2007-09-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1045</spage><epage>1060</epage><pages>1045-1060</pages><issn>0950-5849</issn><eissn>1873-6025</eissn><abstract>Branch testing is a well established method for exercising software. JJ-path testing, whilst employed by some practitioners, is less popular, and the testing of JJ-pairs finds few adherents. In this paper an objective, practical study of the cost-effectiveness of these three testing methods is reported. The effectiveness of each method is assessed, in the presence of infeasible paths, not only on its ability to cover the specific structural element of code that it targets, but also on its ability to cover the structural elements targeted by the other two methods – the collateral coverage it achieves. The assessment is based on the results derived from experiments in which each of the three methods is applied to 35 units of program code.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.infsof.2006.10.009</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0950-5849 |
| ispartof | Information and software technology, 2007-09, Vol.49 (9), p.1045-1060 |
| issn | 0950-5849 1873-6025 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_196422708 |
| source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Branch testing Collateral coverage Comparative analysis Cost-effectiveness Effectiveness JJ-pair testing JJ-path testing Software Structural testing Studies Test methods White box testing |
| title | An objective comparison of the cost effectiveness of three testing methods |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T13%3A57%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20objective%20comparison%20of%20the%20cost%20effectiveness%20of%20three%20testing%20methods&rft.jtitle=Information%20and%20software%20technology&rft.au=Yates,%20D.F.&rft.date=2007-09-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1045&rft.epage=1060&rft.pages=1045-1060&rft.issn=0950-5849&rft.eissn=1873-6025&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.infsof.2006.10.009&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1304033821%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=196422708&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0950584906001807&rfr_iscdi=true |