Talk:Software testing/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Software testing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Section on Testability Hierarchy recently removed: a volunteer to review its suitability?
User MrOllie has recently removed my contributions about the Testability Hierarchy arguing citation spam. I would like to ask a volunteer to review the relevance to this article of the Testability Hierarchy section existing before it was reverted by MrOllie at 22:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC). EXPTIME-complete (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
In particular, this is the text I would like to introduce again:
Hierarchy of testing difficulty
Based on the number of test cases required to construct a complete test suite in each context (i.e. a test suite such that, if it is applied to the implementation under test, then we collect enough information to precisely determine whether the system is correct or incorrect according to some specification), a hierarchy of testing difficulty has been proposed.[1] [2] It includes the following testability classes:
- Class I: there exists a finite complete test suite.
- Class II: any partial distinguishing rate (i.e., any incomplete capability to distinguish correct systems from incorrect systems) can be reached with a finite test suite.
- Class III: there exists a countable complete test suite.
- Class IV: there exists a complete test suite.
- Class V: all cases.
It has been proved that each class is strictly included in the next. For instance, testing when we assume that the behavior of the implementation under test can be denoted by a deterministic finite-state machine for some known finite sets of inputs and outputs and with some known number of states belongs to Class I (and all subsequent classes). However, if the number of states is not known, then it only belongs to all classes from Class II on. If the implementation under test must be a deterministic finite-state machine failing the specification for a single trace (and its continuations), and its number of states is unknown, then it only belongs to classes from Class III on. Testing temporal machines where transitions are triggered if inputs are produced within some real-bounded interval only belongs to classes from Class IV on, whereas testing many non-deterministic systems only belongs to Class V (but not all, and some even belong to Class I). The inclusion into Class I does not require the simplicity of the assumed computation model, as some testing cases involving implementations written in any programming language, and testing implementations defined as machines depending on continuous magnitudes, have been proved to be in Class I. Other elaborated cases, such as the testing framework by Matthew Hennessy under must semantics, and temporal machines with rational timeouts, belong to Class II.
EXPTIME-complete (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- well... I've never heard of this concept/idea before. So, it seems less than notable, but of course I don't know everything. ... I will say that the topic of this article is rather broad. If all info about software testing was put here, the article would be GINORMOUS which is not readable IMO. Maybe it's too long already. I suggest to exclude all but the most core ideas. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- Rodríguez, Ismael; Llana, Luis; Rabanal, Pablo (2014). "A General Testability Theory: Classes, properties, complexity, and testing reductions". IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 40 (9): 862–894. doi:10.1109/TSE.2014.2331690. ISSN 0098-5589. S2CID 6015996.
- Rodríguez, Ismael (2009). "A General Testability Theory". CONCUR 2009 - Concurrency Theory, 20th International Conference, CONCUR 2009, Bologna, Italy, September 1–4, 2009. Proceedings. pp. 572–586. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04081-8_38. ISBN 978-3-642-04080-1.
Proposed deletions
I'm planning to delete section Faults and failures since although not wrong is off topic. Also planning to delete the paragraph with "software product caters" since also far off topic.
@Furkanakkurt8015: wanted to tag you since I see you modified the fault section reacently. Hope you don't mind if I ax it. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)