Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byPeyton Pike Modified about 1 year ago

1
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC

2
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC

3
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC Forms of Equivalence Class Testing Normal only equivalence classes are valid and invalid input values emphasis is on "single failures" works well when variables have a valid range test cases: check valid case, then check invalid combinations by using one invalid value with remaining valid values. Weak more complex equivalence classes of valid input values variables may have several ranges of valid values test cases "cover" valid combinations Strong equivalence classes as in weak form cross product of equivalence classes of valid input values presumes variables are independent We compare these for a function of three variables, F(x 1, x 2 3 )

4
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC Forms of Equivalence Class Testing Normal: classes of valid values of inputs Robust: classes of valid and invalid values of inputs Weak: (single fault assumption) one from each class Strong: (multiple fault assumption) one from each class in Cartesian Product We compare these for a function of three variables, F(x1, x2, x3)

5
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC

6
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC Equivalence Classes: Valid(x 1 ) : a Š x 1 Š b; Invalid(x 1 ) : x 1 Š a, x 1 b Valid(x 2 ) : c Š x 2 Š d; Invalid(x 2 ) : x 2 Š c, x 2 d a b c d x 2 x 1 Weak Robust Equivalence Class Test Cases

7
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC Weak Robust Equivalence Class Testing Variable Valid input set x 1 a1 V1X1, a2 V2X1 x 2 b1 V1X2, b2 V2X2, b3 V3X2, b4 V4X2 x 3 c1 V1X3, c2 V2X3, c3 V3X3 Test cases F(a1, b1, c1) F(a2, b2, c2) F(a1, b3, c3) F(a2, b4, c1)

8
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC Equivalence Classes: x 1 : a Š x 1 Š b, b < x 1 Š c, c < x 1 Š d x 2 : e Š x 2 Š f, f < x 2 Š g a bc d x 2 x 1 Weak Normal Equivalence Class Test Cases e f g

9
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC Strong Normal Equivalence Class Testing Variable Valid input set x 1 a1 V1X1, a2 V2X1 x 2 b1 V1X2, b2 V2X2, b3 V3X2, b4 V4X2 x 3 c1 V1X3, c2 V2X3, c3 V3X3 Test cases F(a1, b1, c1), F(a1, b1, c2), F(a1, b1, c3) F(a1, b2, c1), F(a1, b2, c2), F(a1, b2, c3) F(a1, b3, c1), F(a1, b3, c2), F(a1, b3, c3) F(a1, b4, c1), F(a1, b4, c2), F(a1, b4, c3) F(a2, b1, c1), F(a2, b1, c2), F(a2, b1, c3) F(a2, b2, c1), F(a2, b2, c2), F(a2, b2, c3) F(a2, b3, c1), F(a2, b3, c2), F(a2, b3, c3) F(a2, b4, c1), F(a2, b4, c2), F(a2, b4, c3

10
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC Equivalence Classes: x 1 : a Š x 1 Š b, b < x 1 Š c, c < x 1 Š d x 2 : e Š x 2 Š f, f < x 2 Š g a bc d x 2 x 1 Strong Normal Equivalence Class Test Cases e f g

11
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC

12
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC

13
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC

14
Paul C. JorgensenSoftware Testing: A Craftsman's ApproachEquivalence Class Testing 1 2 34 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 5 A BC

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google