首页> 外文会议>Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), 2007 1st International Symposium on >Defect Detection Efficiency: Test Case Based vs. Exploratory Testing
【24h】

Defect Detection Efficiency: Test Case Based vs. Exploratory Testing

机译:缺陷检测效率:基于测试用例与探索性测试

获取原文

摘要

This paper presents a controlled experiment comparing the defect detection efficiency of exploratory testing (ET) and test case based testing (TCT). While traditional testing literature emphasizes test cases, ET stresses the individual tester''s skills during test execution and does not rely upon predesigned test cases. In the experiment, 79 advanced software engineering students performed manual functional testing on an open-source application with actual and seeded defects. Each student participated in two 90-minute controlled sessions, using ET in one and TCT in the other. We found no significant differences in defect detection efficiency between TCT and ET. The distributions of detected defects did not differ significantly regarding technical type, detection difficulty, or severity. However, TCT produced significantly more false defect reports than ET. Surprisingly, our results show no benefit of using predesigned test cases in terms of defect detection efficiency, emphasizing the need for further studies of manual testing.
机译:本文提出了一个对照实验,将探索性测试(ET)和基于测试用例的测试(TCT)的缺陷检测效率进行了比较。尽管传统的测试文献强调测试用例,但ET强调测试执行过程中各个测试人员的技能,并且不依赖于预先设计的测试用例。在该实验中,有79位软件工程专业的高级生在具有实际缺陷和种种缺陷的开源应用程序上执行了手动功能测试。每个学生参加了两个90分钟的受控课程,其中一个使用ET,另一个使用TCT。我们发现在TCT和ET之间的缺陷检测效率上没有显着差异。在技​​术类型,检测难度或严重性方面,检测到的缺陷的分布没有显着差异。但是,与ET相比,TCT产生的虚假缺陷报告要多得多。出乎意料的是,我们的结果表明,就缺陷检测效率而言,使用预先设计的测试用例没有任何好处,强调需要进一步研究手动测试。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号