On random and partition testing
Author:
Open Access
- 1 March 1998
- journal article
- Published by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) in ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes
- Vol. 23 (2) , 42-48
Abstract
There have been many comparisons of random and partition testing. Proportional partition testing has been suggested as the optimum way to perform partition testing. In this paper we show that this might not be so and discuss some of the problems with previous studies. We look at the expected cost of failures as a way to evaluate the effectiveness of testing strategies and use it to compare random testing, uniform partition testing and proportional partition testing. Also, we introduce partition testing strategies that try to take the cost of failures into account and present some results on their effectiveness.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Using failure cost information for testing and reliability assessmentACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 1996
- A more general sufficient condition for partition testing to be better than random testingInformation Processing Letters, 1996
- Constraints for Safe Partition Testing StrategiesThe Computer Journal, 1996
- Proportional sampling strategy: guidelines for software testing practitionersInformation and Software Technology, 1996
- On the expected number of failures detected by subdomain testing and random testingIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1996
- Optimal test distributions for software failure cost estimationIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1995
- Measuring software failure risk: Methodology and an exampleJournal of Systems and Software, 1994
- On some reliability estimation problems in random and partition testingIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1993
- Analyzing partition testing strategiesIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1991
- Partition testing does not inspire confidence (program testing)IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1990