1 / 96

Black-Box Testing Techniques I

Black-Box Testing Techniques I. Software Testing and Verification Lecture 4. Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida. Definition of Black-Box Testing. Testing based solely on analysis of requirements (specification, user documentation, etc.).

konane
Télécharger la présentation

Black-Box Testing Techniques I

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Black-Box Testing Techniques I Software Testing and Verification Lecture 4 Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida

  2. Definition of Black-Box Testing • Testing based solely on analysis of requirements (specification, user documentation, etc.). • Also know as functional testing. • Black-box testing concerns techniques for designing tests; it is not a “level” of testing. • Black-box techniques apply to all levels of testing (e.g., unit, component, product, and system).

  3. Definition of Black-Box Testing • Testing based solely on analysis of requirements (specification, user documentation, etc.). • Also know as functional testing. • Black-box testing concerns techniques for designing tests; it is not a “level” of testing. • Black-box techniques apply to all levels of testing (e.g., unit, component, product, and system).

  4. Definition of Black-Box Testing • Testing based solely on analysis of requirements (specification, user documentation, etc.). • Also know as functional testing. • Black-box testing concerns techniques for designing tests; it is not a “level” of testing. • Black-box techniques apply to all levels of testing (e.g., unit, component, product, and system).

  5. Definition of Black-Box Testing • Testing based solely on analysis of requirements (specification, user documentation, etc.). • Also know as functional testing. • Black-box testing concerns techniques for designing tests; it is not a “level” of testing. • Black-box techniques apply to all levels of testing (e.g., unit, component, product, and system).

  6. Design Techniques Considered • Partition testing • Combinatorial Approaches • Boundary Value Analysis • Intuition & Experience

  7. Design Techniques Considered • Partition testing • Combinatorial Approaches • Boundary Value Analysis • Intuition & Experience

  8. Design Techniques Considered • Partition testing • Combinatorial Approaches • Boundary Value Analysis • Intuition & Experience

  9. Design Techniques Considered • Partition testing • Combinatorial Approaches • Boundary Value Analysis • Intuition & Experience

  10. Partition Testing • Also known as input space partitioningandequivalence partitioning. • Can be thought of as exhaustive testing Las Vegas style... • Idea is to partition the program’s input space based on a (small) number of equivalence classes such that, according to the specification, every element of a given partition would be “handled” (i.e., mapped to an output) “in the same manner.”

  11. Partition Testing • Also known as input space partitioningandequivalence partitioning. • Can be thought of as exhaustive testing Las Vegas style... • Idea is to partition the program’s input space based on a (small) number of equivalence classes such that, according to the specification, every element of a given partition would be “handled” (i.e., mapped to an output) “in the same manner.”

  12. Partition Testing • Also known as input space partitioningandequivalence partitioning. • Can be thought of as exhaustive testing Las Vegas style... • Idea is to partition the program’s input space based on a (small) number of equivalence classessuch that, according to the specification, every element of a given partition is “handled” (e.g., mapped to an output) “in the same manner.”

  13. Partition Testing (cont’d) • If the program happens to be implemented in such a way that being “handled in the same manner” means that either • every element of a partition is mapped to a correct output, or • every element of a partition is mapped to an incorrect output, then testing the program with just one element from each partition would be tantamount to exhaustive testing.

  14. Partition Testing (cont’d) • Two types of equivalence classes are identified: valid (corresponding to inputs deemed valid from the specification) and invalid (corresponding to inputs deemed erroneous from the specification) • In most multi-input cases, classes for individual inputs must be combined in some manner to partition the input space. (E.g., see City Tax Specification below.)

  15. Partition Testing (cont’d) • Two types of equivalence classes are identified: valid (corresponding to inputs deemed valid from the specification) and invalid (corresponding to inputs deemed erroneous from the specification) • In most multi-input cases, classes for individual inputs must be combined in some manner to partition the input space. (E.g., see City Tax Specification below.)

  16. Partition Testing (cont’d) • However, it is sometimes possible and convenient to identify multivariateclasses which partition an input space directly. • Consider the following specification…

  17. Partition Testing (cont’d) • However, it is sometimes possible and convenient to identify multivariateclasses which partition an input space directly. • Consider the following specification…

  18. Partition Testing Example • Program Specification: An ordered pair of numbers, (x, y), are input and a message is output stating whether they are in ascending order, descending order, or equal. If the input is other than an ordered pair of numbers, an error message is output.

  19. Partition Testing Example (cont’d) • Equivalence Classes: { (x, y) | x<y } (V) { (x, y) | x>y } (V) { (x, y) | x=y } (V) { input is other than an ordered pair of numbers } (I) Valid classes Invalid class

  20. Valid (x, y) Input Space x = y x < y x > y

  21. Partition Testing Example (cont’d) • In this case, being “handled in the same manner” clearly relates directly to the relationship between inputs x and y, so equivalence classes are more naturally defined in terms of (x,y) pairs.

  22. Sample Program Design • Conceptually, would the underlying assumption of partition testing hold for these classes if the following program design was employed? if (input is other than an ordered pair of numbers) then output(“invalid input”) else if x<y then output(“ascending order”) else if x>y then output(“ascending order”) else output(“equal”)

  23. Identifying and Representing Test Cases • Test case design requirements are often represented (documented) using a “test case COVERAGE MATRIX.” • Columns in the matrix represent templates for test case inputs (and in some cases expected results). • Rows represent the design rationale for each test case.

  24. Identifying and Representing Test Cases • Test case design requirements are often represented (documented) using a “test case COVERAGE MATRIX.” • Columns in the matrix represent templates for test case inputs (and in some cases expected results). • Rows represent the design rationale for each test case.

  25. Identifying and Representing Test Cases • Test case design requirements are often represented (documented) using a “test case COVERAGE MATRIX.” • Columns in the matrix represent templates for test case inputs (and in some cases expected results). • Rows represent the design rationale for each test case.

  26. A Test Case Coverage Matrix † Rule of thumb: include test cases that cover invalid classes one at a time to avoid “masking of errors.”

  27. Dealing with Complex Multiple-Input Situations • In the example above, (x, y) input pairs were considered as a unit, yielding a set of disjoint classes partitioning the two-dimensional x, y (valid) input space. • For more complex specifications, classes are often identified for INDIVIDUAL input variables, or even INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES of individual input variables, yielding sets of possibly overlapping classes. For example...

  28. Dealing with Complex Multiple-Input Situations • In the example above, (x, y) input pairs were considered as a unit, yielding a set of disjoint classes partitioning the two-dimensional x, y (valid) input space. • For more complex specifications, classes are often identified for INDIVIDUAL input variables, or even INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES of individual input variables, yielding sets of possibly overlapping classes. For example...

  29. Dealing with Complex Multiple-Input Situations (cont’d) Part of a More Complex Program Specification: Three numbers, x, y, and z, are input. If x is a whole number and less than 40, and if y is non-negative, the output is z+(y/x). If x is greater than or equal to 40, or if y is positive, or if z is odd and at least as large as x, then the output is...

  30. Dealing with Complex Multiple-Input Situations (cont’d) • (Some) Valid Equivalence Classes: • { x | x is a whole number } (V) • { x | x < 40 } (V), { x | x ≥ 40 } (V) • { y | y = 0 } (V), { y | y > 0 } (V) • { z | z is odd } (V) • { (x, z) | z  x } (V) . . .

  31. Dealing with Complex Multiple-Input Situations (cont’d) • In such cases, a strategy for identifying appropriate COMBINATIONS of classes must be employed. • A number of “combinatorial approaches” (including Cause-Effect Analysis) will be considered shortly. • Clearly, the most critical issue in partition testing is the choice of an “equivalence relation” that defines the classes used.

  32. Dealing with Complex Multiple-Input Situations (cont’d) • In such cases, a strategy for identifying appropriate COMBINATIONS of classes must be employed. • A number of “combinatorial approaches” (including Cause-Effect Analysis) will be considered shortly. • Clearly, the most critical issue in partition testing is the choice of an “equivalence relation” that defines the classes used.

  33. Dealing with Complex Multiple-Input Situations (cont’d) • In such cases, a strategy for identifying appropriate COMBINATIONS of classes must be employed. • A number of “combinatorial approaches” (including Cause-Effect Analysis) will be considered shortly. • Clearly, the most critical issue in partition testing is the choice of an “equivalence relation” that defines the classes used.

  34. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes • “Must Be” Situations • “First character must be a letter.” • Identify one valid and one invalid class: {1st char letter } (V), {1st char not letter} (I)

  35. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes • “Must Be” Situations • “First character must be a letter.” • Identify one valid and one invalid class: {1st char letter } (V), {1st char not letter} (I)

  36. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes • “Must Be” Situations • “First character must be a letter.” • Identify one valid and one invalid class: {1st char letter } (V), {1st char not letter} (I)

  37. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes • “Must Be” Situations • “First character must be a letter.” • Identify one valid and one invalid class: {1st char letter } (V), {1st char not letter} (I)

  38. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes (cont’d) • “Range of Values” Situations • “Input HOURS will range in value from 0 to 40.” • Identify one valid and two invalid classes: { HOURS  [0,40] } (V), { HOURS < 0 } (I), { HOURS > 40 } (I)

  39. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes (cont’d) • “Range of Values” Situations • “Input HOURS will range in value from 0 to 40.” • Identify one valid and two invalid classes: { HOURS  [0,40] } (V), { HOURS < 0 } (I), { HOURS > 40 } (I)

  40. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes (cont’d) • “Range of Values” Situations • “Input HOURS will range in value from 0 to 40.” • Identify one valid and two invalid classes: { HOURS  [0,40] } (V), { HOURS < 0 } (I), { HOURS > 40 } (I)

  41. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes (cont’d) • “Range of Values” Situations • “Input HOURS will range in value from 0 to 40.” • Identify one valid and two invalid classes: { HOURS  [0,40] } (V), { HOURS < 0 } (I), { HOURS > 40 } (I)

  42. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes (cont’d) • “Possible Differences” Situations • “For HOURS  20, output ‘Low’; for HOURS > 20, output ‘HIGH’." • If the specification suggests that values in a class may be handled differently, divide the class accordingly. { HOURS  [0,40] } (V) becomes: { HOURS  [0,20]} (V), { HOURS  (20,40] } (V)

  43. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes (cont’d) • “Possible Differences” Situations • “For HOURS  20, output ‘Low’; for HOURS > 20, output ‘HIGH’." • If the specification suggests that values in a class may be handled differently, divide the class accordingly. { HOURS  [0,40] } (V) becomes: { HOURS  [0,20]} (V), { HOURS  (20,40] } (V)

  44. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes (cont’d) • “Possible Differences” Situations • “For HOURS  20, output ‘Low’; for HOURS > 20, output ‘HIGH’." • If the specification suggests that values in a class may be handled differently, divide the class accordingly. { HOURS  [0,40] } (V) becomes: { HOURS  [0,20]} (V), { HOURS  (20,40] } (V)

  45. Some Simple Heuristics for Identifying Equivalence Classes (cont’d) • “Possible Differences” Situations • “For HOURS  20, output ‘Low’; for HOURS > 20, output ‘HIGH’." • If the specification suggests that values in a class may be handled differently, divide the class accordingly. { HOURS  [0,40] } (V) becomes: { HOURS  [0,20]} (V), { HOURS  (20,40] } (V)

  46. Another Partition Testing Example • Identify disjoint sets of classes for each input variable associated with the following program specification fragment. • You may detect some “incompleteness” problems with the specification…

  47. Another Partition Testing Example • Identify disjoint sets of classes for each input variable associated with the following program specification fragment. • You may detect some “incompleteness” problems with the specification…

  48. City Tax Specification 1: The first input is a yes/no response to the question “Do you reside within the city?” The second input is gross pay for the year in question. A non-resident will pay 1% of the gross pay in city tax. Residents pay on the following scale: - If gross pay is no more than $30,000, the tax is 1%. - If gross pay is more than $30,000, but no more than $50,000, the tax is 5%. - If gross pay is more than $50,000, the tax is 15%.

  49. City Tax Specification 1: The first input isa yes/no response to the question “Do you reside within the city?” The second input is gross pay for the year in question. A non-resident will pay 1% of the gross pay in city tax. Residents pay on the following scale: - If gross pay is no more than $30,000, the tax is 1%. - If gross pay is more than $30,000, but no more than $50,000, the tax is 5%. - If gross pay is more than $50,000, the tax is 15%.

  50. Res? { yes } (V) { no } (V) { other } (I) Gross_Pay [0, 30K] (V) (30K,50K] (V) (50K, MAX] (V) < 0 (I) > MAX (I) Equivalence Classes for City Tax Specification 1: Note that program behaviors associated with invalid inputs are not specified!

More Related