Static techniques

“Static Techniques”
Graham et al (2006)
Oleh :
Chayo Rona Fakhquilla (11453205753)
Program Studi S1 Sistem Informasi
Fakultas Sains dan Teknologi
Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau
http://sif.uin-suska.ac.id/ http://fst.uin-suska.ac.id/ http://www.uin-suska.ac.id/

The definition of testing outlines
objectives that relate to evaluation, revealing
defects and quality. As indicated in the definition
two approaches can be used to achieve these
objectives, static testing and dynamic testing.
➜dynamic testing methods, software is
executed using a set of input values and its
output is then examined and compared to what is
expected.
➜static testing, software work products are
examined manually, or with a set of tools, but not
executed.

The use of static testing on software work
products has various advantages:
• Since static testing can start early in the life cycle,
early feedback on quality issues can be
established, e.g. an early validation of user
requirements and not just late in the life cycle
during acceptance testing.
• By detecting defects at an early stage, rework
costs are most often relatively low and thus a
relatively cheap improvement of the quality of
software products can be achieved.
• Since rework effort is substantially reduced,
development productivity figures are likely to
increase.
• Static tests contribute to an increased awareness
of quality issues.

Reviews vary from very informal to
formal (i.e. well structured and regulated).
Although inspection is perhaps the most
documented and formal review technique, it is
certainly not the only one. The formality of a
review process is related to factors such as the
maturity of the development process, any legal
or regulatory requirements or the need for an
audit trail. In practice the informal review is
perhaps the most common type of review.
Informal reviews are applied at various times
during the early stages in the life cycle of a
document.
REVIEW PROCESS

In contrast to informal reviews, formal reviews
follow a formal process. A typical formal review
process consists of six main steps:
➜Planning
➜Kick-off
➜Preparation
➜Review meeting
➜Rework
➜Follow-up.
Phases of a formal review

➜The moderator : The moderator (or review
leader) leads the review process.
➜The author : As the writer of the document
under review, the author's basic goal should be
to learn as much as possible with regard to
improving the quality of the document, but also to
improve his or her ability to write future
documents.
➜The scribe : During the logging meeting, the
scribe (or recorder) has to record each defect
mentioned and any suggestions for process
improvement.
Roles and responsibilities

➜The reviewers : The task of the reviewers
(also called checkers or inspectors) is to check
any material for defects, mostly prior to the
meeting. The level of thoroughness required
depends on the type of review.
➜The manager : The manager is involved in the
reviews as he or she decides on the execution
of reviews, allocates time in project schedules
and determines whether review process
objectives have been met.

Walkthrough : A walkthrough is characterized by the author of the
document under review guiding the participants through the document
and his or her thought processes, to achieve a common understanding
and to gather feedback.
The specific goals of a walkthrough depend on its role in
the creation of the document. In general the following goals can be
applicable:
to present the document to stakeholders both within and outside the
software discipline, in order to gather information regarding the topic
under documentation;
to explain (knowledge transfer) and evaluate the contents of the
document;
to establish a common understanding of the document;
to examine and discuss the validity of proposed solutions and the
viability of alternatives, establishing consensus.
Key characteristics of walkthroughs are:
The meeting is led by the authors; often a separate scribe is present.
Scenarios and dry runs may be used to validate the content.
Separate pre-meeting preparation for reviewers is optional.

A technical review is a discussion meeting that
focuses on achieving consensus about the technical
content of a document.
The goals of a technical review are to:
• assess the value of technical concepts and
alternatives in the product and project environment;
• establish consistency in the use and representation
of technical concepts;
• ensure, at an early stage, that technical concepts
are used correctly;
• inform participants of the technical content of the
document.

➜Inspection : Inspection is the most formal review type. The
document under inspection is prepared and checked thoroughly by the
reviewers before the meeting, comparing the work product with its
sources and other referenced documents, and using rules and
checklists.
The generally accepted goals of inspection are to:
➜help the author to improve the quality of the document under
inspection;
➜remove defects efficiently, as early as possible;
➜improve product quality, by producing documents with a higher level
of quality;
➜create a common understanding by exchanging information among
the inspection participants;
➜train new employees in the organization's development process;
➜learn from defects found and improve processes in order to prevent
recurrence of similar defects;
➜sample a few pages or sections from a larger document in order to
measure the typical quality of the document, leading to improved work
by individuals in the future, and to process improvements.

Implementing (formal) reviews is not easy as there is
no one way to success and there are numerous ways
to fail. The next list contains a number of critical
success factors that improve the chances of success
when implementing reviews. It aims to answer the
question, 'How do you start (formal) reviews?'.
➜Find a 'champion‘
➜Pick things that really count
➜Explicitly plan and track review activities
➜Train participants
➜Manage people issues
➜Follow the rules but keep it simple
➜Continuously improve process and tools
➜Report results
➜Just do it!
Success factors for reviews

Static analysis is an examination of requirements,
design and code that differs from more traditional
dynamic testing in a number of important ways:
Static analysis is performed on requirements, design
or code without actually executing the software artifact
being examined.
• Static analysis is ideally performed before the types
of formal review discussed in Section 3.2.
• Static analysis is unrelated to dynamic properties of
the requirements, design and code, such as test
coverage.
• The goal of static analysis is to find defects,
whether or not they may cause failures. As with
reviews, static analysis finds defects rather than
failures.
STATIC ANALYSIS BY TOOLS

Checking for adherence to coding
standards is certainly the most well-known of all
features. The first action to be taken is to define
or adopt a coding standard. Usually a coding
standard consists of a set of programming rules
(e.g. 'Always check boundaries on an array when
copying to that array'), naming conventions (e.g.
'Classes should start with capital C) and layout
specifications (e.g. 'Indent 4 spaces').
Coding standards

As stated, when performing static code
analysis, usually information is calculated about
structural attributes of the code, such as
comment frequency, depth of nesting, cyclomatic
number and number of lines of code. This
information can be computed not only as the
design and code are being created but also as
changes are made to a system, to see if the
design or code is becoming bigger, more
complex and more difficult to understand and
maintain. The measurements also help us to
decide among several design alternatives,
especially when redesigning portions of existing
Code metrics

Static techniques

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Static techniques (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Static techniques