缺陷检测效率:基于测试用例与探索性测试

Juha Itkonen, M. Mäntylä, C. Lassenius
{"title":"缺陷检测效率:基于测试用例与探索性测试","authors":"Juha Itkonen, M. Mäntylä, C. Lassenius","doi":"10.1109/ESEM.2007.56","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":124420,"journal":{"name":"First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007)","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"87","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defect Detection Efficiency: Test Case Based vs. Exploratory Testing\",\"authors\":\"Juha Itkonen, M. Mäntylä, C. Lassenius\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ESEM.2007.56\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":124420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007)\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"87\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2007.56\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2007.56","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 87

摘要

本文通过一个对照实验,比较了探索性测试(ET)和基于测试用例的测试(TCT)的缺陷检测效率。传统的测试文献强调测试用例,而ET强调测试执行过程中测试人员的技能,并且不依赖于预先设计的测试用例。在实验中,79名高级软件工程专业的学生在一个具有实际缺陷和播种缺陷的开源应用程序上执行手动功能测试。每个学生参加两个90分钟的控制课程,其中一个使用ET,另一个使用TCT。我们发现TCT和ET在缺陷检测效率上没有显著差异。检测到的缺陷分布在技术类型、检测难度或严重程度上没有显著差异。然而,TCT比ET产生了更多的错误缺陷报告。令人惊讶的是,我们的结果显示,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,这强调了进一步研究手工测试的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Defect Detection Efficiency: Test Case Based vs. Exploratory Testing
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparing Model Generated with Expert Generated IV&V Activity Plans Decision Support with EMPEROR A cost effectiveness indicator for software development Fine-Grained Software Metrics in Practice Automated Information Extraction from Empirical Software Engineering Literature: Is that possible?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1