Software Construction & Design 1
The University of Sydney Page 1
Software Design and
Construction 2
SOFT3202 / COMP9202
Advanced Testing
Techniques (2)
School of Information Technologies
Dr. Basem Suleiman
The University of Sydney Page 2
Copyright Warning
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Copyright Regulations 1969
WARNING
This material has been reproduced and communicated to
you by or on behalf of the University of Sydney
pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (the
Act ).
The material in this communication may be subject
to copyright under the Act. Any further copying or
communication of this material by you may be the
subject of copyrightprotection under
the Act.
Do not remove this notice.
The University of Sydney Page 3
Agenda
– Testing Techniques
– Black-box, white-box and gray-box testing
– Fuzzing
– Code/Test Coverage
– System Testing
– User Acceptance Testing
The University of Sydney Page 4
Advanced Testing Types
The University of Sydney Page 5
Black-box Testing
– No programming and software knowledge
– Carried by software testers
– May lead to poor coverage
– Can be applied unit, integration, system and acceptance testing
Executable
software
code
Test
Case
Input
Test
Case
Output
The University of Sydney Page 6
Black Box Testing – Example
– Test planned without knowledge of the code
– Based only on specification or design
– E.g., given a function that computes sign (x+y)
f(X,Y)
x
y
sign(x+y)
The University of Sydney Page 7
White-box Testing
– Verifies the internal structures of a source code (structural testing)
– Test cases are designed based on code understanding and programming
skills (by software developers)
– Unit, integration and system testing
– Can help detecting many errors, but not unimplemented/missing
requirements
Test
Case
Input
Test
Case
Output
The University of Sydney Page 8
Grey-box Testing
– Tests are designed based on the internal structures and algorithms
– Test cases from high-level and detailed application documentation
– To design more informed test cases (better test coverage)
– Tests are executed from outside
– Black-box testing
The University of Sydney Page 9
Black, White or Grey?
– .
The University of Sydney Page 10
Black-box Testing – Test Cases
Equivalence Class Value for
month
Value for
year
Months with 31 days, non-leap years 7 (July) 1901
Months with 31 days, leap years 7 (July) 1904
Months with 30 days, non-leap years 6 (June) 1901
Months with 30 days, leap year 6 (June) 1904
Months with 28 or 29 days, non-leap year 2 February 1901
Months with 28 or 29 days, leap year 2 February 1904
Equivalence Class Value for
month
Value
for year
Leap years divisible by 400 2 (February) 2000
Non-leap years divisible by
100
2 (February) 1900
Non-positive invalid month 0 1291
Positive invalid months 13 1315
The University of Sydney Page 11
Exercise – White-box Testing
Based on the provided code, design test cases for
the method getNumDaysInMonth()
Hint: Consider various paths in the code
The University of Sydney Page 12
White-box Testing
– Exercising all possible paths through the code at least once, most faults will
trigger failures
– Paths identification requires understanding the source code and the data
structure
– Diagrams (e.g., flow graph, activity diagram) may be utilized to visualize all
paths
– Test cases that each edge in the activity diagram is traversed at least once
– Condition – select inputs both the true and false branches
The University of Sydney Page 13
White-box Testing – Visualizing Paths
– .
The University of Sydney Page 14
White-box Testing – Test Cases
Test case Path
(year = 0, month = 1) {throw1}
(year = 1901, month = 1) {n=32 return}
(year = 1901, month = 2) (year = 1904, month = 2) {n=28 return}
(year = 1901, month = 4) {n=30 return}
(year = 1901, month = 0) {throw2}
The University of Sydney Page 15
White-box Testing – Compare
Test case Path
(year = 0, month = 1) {throw1}
(year = 1901, month = 1) {n=32 return}
(year = 1901, month = 2) (year = 1904, month = 2) {n=28 return}
(year = 1901, month = 4) {n=30 return}
(year = 1901, month = 0) {throw2}
Equivalence Class Value for
month
Value for
year
Months with 31 days, non-leap years 7 (July) 1901
Months with 31 days, leap years 7 (July) 1904
Months with 30 days, non-leap years 6 (June) 1901
Months with 30 days, leap year 6 (June) 1904
Months with 28 or 29 days, non-leap year 2 February 1901
Months with 28 or 29 days, leap year 2 February 1904
Equivalence Class Value for
month
Value
for year
Leap years divisible by 400 2 (February) 2000
Non-leap years divisible by
100
2 (February) 1900
Non-positive invalid month 0 1291
Positive invalid months 13 1315
The University of Sydney Page 16
White-box Testing – Compare
– Both extensively test cases of February calculations
– No test cases for years divisible by 100 – path testing with isLeapYear()
– Path testing exercise a path in the program (e.g., numDays=32)
– Omission and missing requirements cannot be detected in path testing
– Failure to handle the non-leap year 1900
The University of Sydney Page 17
Code (Test) Coverage
The University of Sydney Page 18
Code (Test) Coverage
– A metric that measures the extent to which a source code has been
executed by a set of tests
– White-box testing
– Usually measured as percentage, e.g., 70% coverage
– Different criteria to measure coverage
– E.g., method, statement, loop
The University of Sydney Page 19
Coverage Criteria
Coverage Criteria Description
Method How many of the methods are called, during the tests
Call How many of the potential method calls are executed, during the tests
Statement How many statements are exercised, during the tests
Branch (decision) How many of the possible outcomes of the branches have occurred during
the tests
ConditionHas each separate condition within each branch been evaluated to both
true and false
Condition/decision
coverage
Requires both decision and condition coverage be satisfied
Loop Each loop executed zero times, once and more than once
Data flow coverage Each variable definition and its usage executed
The University of Sydney Page 20
Coverage Criteria – Method
– Examine the code. Given the following
test cases, calculate the method
coverage
– month = 7, year = 1901
– month – 0, year = 2002
– month = 2, year = 1901
– month = 2, year = 1904
– Discuss
The University of Sydney Page 21
Coverage Criteria – Statement
– Examine the code snippet.
Calculate the statement
coverage after executing each
of the following test cases:
– year = 1901
– year = 1904
– Discuss
The University of Sydney Page 22
Coverage Criteria – Branch
– Examine the code snippet.
Identify test cases that will
ensure that each branch is
exercised at least once
– Discuss
The University of Sydney Page 23
Coverage Criteria – Condition
– Examine the code snippet.
Calculate the condition
coverage after executing each
of the following test cases:
– year = 2000
– year = 2018
– Discuss
The University of Sydney Page 25
Other Coverage Criteria
– Path coverage
– Has every possible route through a given part of the code been executed
– Entry/exit coverage
– Has every possible call and return of the function been executed
– State coverage
– Has every state in a FSM (finite-state-machine) been reached and explored
– Other…
The University of Sydney Page 26
Visualizing Paths – Recall
– .
The University of Sydney Page 27
Weather Station Case Study – Revisit
The University of Sydney Page 28
State Coverage
– Each state in a finite-state-machine
been exercised reached and explored
– Testing states of WeatherStation using
state model
– Identify sequences of state transitions to
be tested
– Define event sequences to force these
transitions
– Examples:
– Shutdown → Running → Shutdown
– Configuration → Running → Testing →
Transmitting → Running
– Many others…
The University of Sydney Page 29
Which Coverage Criteria?
– Some coverage criteria are implied in other ones
– Path coverage implies decision, statement and entry/exit coverage
– Decision coverage implies statement
– Full coverage might be infeasible
– Module with n decisions
– Loops can result in infinite number of paths
The University of Sydney Page 30
Coverage Target
– What coverage should one aims for?
– Software criticality determines coverage level
–
– Extremely high coverage for safety-critical (dependable) software
– Government/standardization organizations
– E.g., European corporation for space standardization (ESS-E-ST-40C)
100% statement and decision coverage for 2 out of 4 criticality levels
The University of Sydney Page 31
Coverage – Tests Quality
– Coverage percentage might confusingly be linked to a quality target
– Achieving certain coverage target not necessarily useful
– e.g., software to be deployed when 80% coverage is achieved
– High coverage numbers can be attained but probably by test smells
– TDD can help but not sufficient to get good test
– Understanding different types of coverage criteria can effectively help
in identifying effective test cases
https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestCoverage.html
The University of Sydney Page 32
Fuzzy Testing (Fuzzing)
The University of Sydney Page 33
Fuzz Testing (Fuzzing)
– Automated software testing techniques that verifies the softwarebehaviour
using invalid, unexpected or random data
– Random testing or monkey testing
– Infinite monkey theorem –
– “a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite
amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete
works of William Shakespeare”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
The University of Sydney Page 34
Fuzz Testing
– The Fuzzer would generate particular sequence of inputs that might
trigger a crash/fault
– Typically input domain is structured
– Effective fuzzing should generate inputs
– “Valid enough” to create unexpected behaviours
– “invalid enough” to expose boundary cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzing
The University of Sydney Page 35
Fuzzing based on Inputs
– Generation-based Fuzzer
– Inputs are generated from scratch based on a provided model
– Mutation-based Fuzzer
– Inputs are generated by mutating provided seeds
– Input-structure Fuzzer
– Generate inputs for software that take structured input
– Sequence of mouse or keyboard events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzing
The University of Sydney Page 36
Fuzzing based Program Structure
– Black-box Fuzzer
– Unaware of program structure randomly generating inputs
– Can be run in parallel and scale
– May discover obvious bugs
– White-box Fuzzer
– Use program analysis to systematically increase code coverage
– Might use model-based testing to generate inputs and check outputs against
the program specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzing
The University of Sydney Page 37
System Testing
The University of Sydney Page 38
System Testing
– Verifying the behavior of the entire system
– Does the system meet the requirements?
– Functional requirements
– Non-functional properties (e.g., security, performance)
– Quality of requirements impact ease of testing
– Also considers external interfaces, operating environment, hardware
devices
– Carried out by the development/testing team
The University of Sydney Page 39
Testing Levels – System Testing
Unit Testing
Integration
Testing
System
Testing
Acceptance
Testing
• Effective unit and integration testing should have identified many of the software
defects
• System testing might uncover undetected defects (defect testing)
The University of Sydney Page 40
System Testing – Functional Testing
– Test system functionality (what the system suppose to do)
– Test cases designed from the system requirements (use cases)
– System as a Black-box
The University of Sydney Page 41
Functional Testing – Example
– Consider the following requirements of a healthcare system
“If a patient is known to be allergic to any medication, then the prescription of
that medication shall result in a warning message being issued to the system user.
If a prescriber chooses to ignore an allergy warning, they shall provide a reason
why this had been ignored”
How one can verify that these requirements have been satisfied?
The University of Sydney Page 42
Functional Testing – Example
1. A patient record with no known allergies → prescribed medication for allergies → a warning
message is not issued by the system
2. A patient record with a known allergy → prescribe the medication to that the patient is allergic
to → a warning is issued by the system
3. A patient record in which allergies to two or more drugs → prescribe these drugs separately →
has a correct warning for each drug been issued?
4. Prescribe two drugs that the patient is allergic to → two warnings are correctly issued?
5. Prescribe a drug that issues a warning and overrule that warning → the system must require the
user to provide information explaining why the warning was overruled
The University of Sydney Page 43
Scenario based Testing
– Approach for system testing where typical scenarios of system use are used for
testing
– A story describes how the system might be used
– Test several requirements including functional and non-functional
– Scenarios should be realistic and real system users should reflect the user thinking
and system processes
– Scenarios should include deliberate mistakes to verify the system behavior
– Problems should be noted
– Part of the system requirement analysis (use case scenarios)
The University of Sydney Page 44
Scenario based Testing – Example
Consider the usage following scenario for a Mental Health Care-Patient Management
System. What functions/non-functional requirements will be tested?
The University of Sydney Page 45
System Testing – Non-Functional Properties
– Test how well the system behave regarding non-functional properties
– Performance, security, usability, reliability, other
– Defined as non-functional requirements from which test cases are designed
– Quality attributes or “ilities”
– Typically defined precisely and associated with quantifiable measures used
(e.g., response time, availability)
– Testbeds and real production environments
The University of Sydney Page 47
Performance Testing
– Verify how the system performs under intended workload
– Typically performance measures
– Speed: amount of time an application needs to perform a task
– Once a user input search terms, search results should be displayed in less than
400ms
– 95% of transactions should be executed in less than 2 seonds
– Throughput: the amount of work an application must perform in unit time
– The application should handle 800 transactions per second
– Scalability:
– How does an application perform when number of simultaneous users increase
– How does an application perform as the data it processes increases in size
The University of Sydney Page 49
Types of Performance Testing
– Load Testing
– Verify the system performance under expected workload (number of
users/transactions)
– Identify performance bottlenecks (hardware and software)
– Stress Testing
– Verify software behavior at the maximum and beyond the designed load
– Determine the behavioral limits and test robustness in mission-critical software
– Spike testing
– Verify the system performance under sudden workload increase/decrease
– Determine how well the system will handle such sudden changes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_performance_testing#Load_testing
The University of Sydney Page 50
Types of Performance Testing
– Soak (endurance) Testing
– Verify how the system perform under a typical production load over extended
period of time
– E.g., memory leaks could trigger after certain time duration of a typical
production load
– Resources leak, performance degradation over time
– Configuration Testing
– Verify system performance under different configuration changes to system’s
components
– Server configuration, software configuration
The University of Sydney Page 51
Acceptance Testing
The University of Sydney Page 52
User Acceptance Testing
Unit Testing
Integration
Testing
System
Testing
Acceptance
Testing
• Test from system user’s perspectives
Developers / Testers
Users
The University of Sydney Page 53
User (Acceptance) Testing
– Users test the system by providing input and assess the system behavior
– Developers/testing team try to replicated user’s environment and
interactions
– Users determine if the system behave as expected in their work environment
in terms of functional and non-functionality aspects
– Alpha, Beta and User testing
The University of Sydney Page 54
User Testing – Alpha Testing
– Users use the software at the developer’s environment where the software
used in a controlled setting
– Users identify problems that are not obvious to the developers
– Provide early validation of the system functionality
– Agile methods involve users in testing developed functions in every
development iteration
The University of Sydney Page 55
User Testing – Beta Testing
– User use a release of the software in their environment to verify system
behavior
– Group of lead users/customers
– Also to discover problems between the software and features of the
environment
The University of Sydney Page 56
User Testing – Acceptance Testing
– Users test the system and decide whether it is ready for use
– Previously agreed acceptance criteria
The University of Sydney Page 57
User Testing – Acceptance Testing
– Define acceptance criteria (early as part of the system contract
– Plan acceptance testing
– Resources, test plan and required coverage
– Derive acceptance tests
– Design tests that cover both functional and non-functional requirements
– Run tests
– Ideally in actual environment by end users
– Negotiate test results
– Based on acceptance criteria, identified issues to be addressed by developers
– Accept/reject
– Good enough for use or further development is needed
The University of Sydney Page 58
Software Testing Classification
Functional Testing
• Unit testing
• Integration testing
• System testing
• Regression testing
• Interface testing
• User Acceptance Testing (UAT) – Alpha and Beta testing
• Configuration, smoke, sanity, end-to-end testing
Non-Functional Testing
• Performance testing
• Load testing
• Security testing
• Stress testing
• Reliability testing
• Usability testing
The University of Sydney Page 59
Test/Code Coverage
The University of Sydney Page 60
Tools for Code Coverage
– There are many tools/plug-ins for code coverage
in Java
– Example: EclEmma*
– EclEmma is a code coverage plug-in for Eclipse
– It provides rich features for code coverage analysis
in Eclipse IDE
– EclEmma is based on the JaCoCo code coverage
library
• JaCoCo is a free code coverage library for
Java, which has been created by the EclEmma
team
https://www.eclemma.org/
The University of Sydney Page 61
EclEmma – Counters
– EclEmma supports different types of counters to be
summarized in code coverage overview
– bytecode instructions, branches, lines, methods, types and
cyclomatic complexity
– Should understand each counter and how it is measured
– Counters are based on JaCoCon – see JaCoCo
documentation for detailed counter definitions
https://www.eclemma.org/
http://www.jacoco.org/jacoco/trunk/doc/counters.html
The University of Sydney Page 62
EclEmma Coverage View
https://www.eclemma.org/
The Coverage view shows all analyzed Java elements within the common Java hierarchy.
Individual columns contain the numbers for the active session, always summarizing the child
elements of the respective Java element
The University of Sydney Page 63
EclEmma Coverage – Source Code Annotations
https://www.eclemma.org/
Source lines color code:
• green for fully covered lines,
• yellow for partly covered lines (some
instructions or branches missed)
• red for lines that have not been
executed at all
Diamonds color code
• green for fully covered branches,
• yellow for partly covered branches
• red when no branches in the
particular line have been executed.
The University of Sydney Page 64
References
– Ian Sommerville. 2016. Software Engineering (10th ed.) Global Edition. Pearson,
Essex England
– Bernd Bruegge and Allen H. Dutoit. 2009. Object-Oriented Software Engineering
Using Uml, Patterns, and Java (3rd ed.). Pearson.
– Martin Fowler, Test Coverage. https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestCoverage.html
– Software Performance Testing,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_performance_testing
– Software Testing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_testing
– Fuzz Testing (Fuzzing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzing
The University of Sydney Page 65
W5 Tutorial: Test Techniques 2 + W5
quiz
W5 Lecture: Review and Overview
of Design Patterns
Testing Assignment A2 release
Next Lecture/Tutorial…
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.