Theoretical comparison of testing methods
- 1 November 1989
- journal article
- Published by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) in ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes
- Vol. 14 (8) , 28-37
- https://doi.org/10.1145/75309.75313
Abstract
Comparison of software testing methods is meaningful only if sound theory relates the properties compared to actual software quality. Existing comparisons typically use anecdotal foundations with no necessary relationship to quality, comparing methods on the basis of technical terms the methods themselves define. In the most seriously flawed work, one method whose efficacy is unknown is used as a standard for judging other methods! Random testing, as a method that can be related to quality (in both the conventional sense of statistical reliability, and the more stringent sense of software assurance) , offers the opportunity for valid comparison.This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Experimental evaluation of six test techniquesPublished by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) ,2003
- Comments, with reply, on "Axiomatizing software test data adequacy" by E.J. WeyukerIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1989
- The category-partition method for specifying and generating fuctional testsCommunications of the ACM, 1988
- A comparison of some structural testing strategiesIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1988
- Introduction to special section on software testingCommunications of the ACM, 1988
- Comparing the Effectiveness of Software Testing StrategiesIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1987
- Probable correctness theoryInformation Processing Letters, 1987
- Hints on Test Data Selection: Help for the Practicing ProgrammerComputer, 1978
- Testing Programs with the Aid of a CompilerIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1977
- Reliability of the Path Analysis Testing StrategyIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1976