What problems may be encountered when the top-down integration strategy is chosen?
Top-down strategy sounds relatively uncomplicated, but in practice, logistical problems can arise. The most common of these problems occurs when processing at low levels in the hierarchy is required to adequately test upper levels. Stubs replace low-level modules at the beginning of top-down testing; therefore, no significant data can flow upward in the program structure. The tester is left with three choices:
(1) delay many tests until stubs are replaced with actual modules,
(2) develop stubs that perform limited functions that simulate the actual module, or
(3) integrate the software from the bottom of the hierarchy upward.
The first approach (delay tests until stubs are replaced by actual modules) causes us to loose some control over correspondence between specific tests and incorporation of specific modules. This can lead to difficulty in determining the cause of errors and tends to violate the highly constrained nature of the top-down approach. The second approach is workable but can lead to significant overhead, as stubs become more and more complex. The third approach, called bottom-up-testing, is discussed in the next section.
Bottom-up Integration:
Bottom-up integration testing, as its name implies, begins construction and testing with atomic modules (i.e., components at the lowest levels in the program structure). Because components are integrated from the bottom up, processing required for components subordinate to a given level is always available and the need for stubs is eliminated.
A bottom-up integration strategy may be implemented with the following steps:
What are the steps for bottom-up integration?
1. Low-level components are combined into clusters (sometimes called builds) that perform a specific software subfunction.
2. A driver (a control program for testing) is written to coordinate test case input and output.
3. The cluster is tested.
4. Drivers are removed and clusters are combined moving upward in the program structure.
As integration moves upward, the need for separate test drivers lessens. In fact, if the top two levels of program structure are integrated top down, the number of drivers can be reduced substantially and integration of clusters is greatly simplified.
Regression Testing:
Each time a new module is added as part of integration testing, the software changes. New data flow paths are established, new I/O may occur, and new control logic is invoked. These changes may cause problems with functions that previously worked flawlessly. In the context of an integration test strategy, regression testing is the re-execution of some subset of tests that have already been conducted to ensure that changes have not propagated unintended side effects.
In a broader context, successful tests (of any kind) result in the discovery of errors, and errors must be corrected. Whenever software is corrected, some aspect of the software configuration (the program, its documentation, or the data that support it) is changed. Regression testing is the activity that helps to ensure that changes (due to testing or for other reasons) do not introduce unintended behavior or additional errors.
Regression testing may be conducted manually, by re-executing a subset of all test cases or using automated capture/playback tools. Capture/playback tools enable the software engineer to capture test cases and results for subsequent playback and comparison.
The regression test suite (the subset of tests to be executed) contains three different classes of test cases:
• A representative sample of tests that will exercise all software functions.
• Additional tests that focus on software functions that are likely to be affected by the change.
• Tests that focus on the software components that have been changed.
As integration testing proceeds, the number of regression tests can grow quite large. Therefore, the regression test suite should be designed to include only those tests that address one or more classes of errors in each of the major program functions. It is impractical and inefficient to re-execute every test for every program function once a change has occurred.
RELATED POST
UNIT TESTING PART ONE
UNIT TESTING PART TWO
UNIT TESTING PART THREE
GUI TESTING
WINDOWS COMPLIANCE GUI TESTING PART ONE
WINDOWS COMPLIANCE GUI TESTING PART TWO
WINDOWS COMPLIANCE GUI TESTING PART THREE
WINDOWS COMPLIANCE GUI TESTING PART FOUR VALIDATION TESTING
WINDOWS COMPLIANCE GUI TESTING PART FIVE CONDITION TESTING
WINDOWS COMPLIANCE GUI TESTING PART SIX GENERAL CONDITION TESTING
CONDITION TESTING
TESTING CONDITIONS PART ONE
TESTING CONDITIONS PART TWO
TESTING CONDITIONS PART THREE
TESTING CONDITIONS PART FOUR
SPECIFIC FIELD TESTING
USABILITY TESTING
INTEGRATION TESTING
INTEGRATION TESTING PART ONE
INTEGRATION TESTING PART TWO
INTEGRATION TESTING PART THREE
INTEGRATION TESTING PART FOUR
INTEGRATION TESTING PART FIVE
INTEGRATION TEST STANDARDS
INTEGRATION TEST STANDARDS PART TWO
No comments:
Post a Comment