Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

Software Testing in Software Development

Aaron Carl T. Fernandez

Mapua University
Software testing is a crucial activity in and an integral part of software development as it
evaluates the quality of a software program by identifying its defects and problems which are the
basis of its improvements. It has evolved from the code and fix process in finding coding
errors, to having a separate and distinct stage in a software development life cycle up to being a
collaborative effort embedded throughout the entire software development process performed
even by the business customers. This paper takes a look at its application in software
development over the years and magnify its importance by exemplifying the adverse effects of
its inadequacy in the real world. This is a literary review of 91 journals, books, thesis and reports
which explored the growth of the discipline and identified the contributors of its development
over the years.
I. Introduction
Software testing is the process of identifying errors, gaps or missing requirements and ensuring
the software being developed is fit for use and has met its stakeholders expectations. It should
not be confused with software debugging as testing aims to identify undiscovered errors and
software deficiencies contrary to the former which is a process of investigating the discovered
errors and subsequently removing it by design or code modification (Li, 1990). Software testing
typically consumes 30% - 40% of development efforts. Andersson and Bergstand (1995)
estimated that 30% of the effort were put into testing in the 1990s and International Software
Testing Qualifications Board [ISTQB] (2016) reported that the average expenditure for testing in
an IT project was 35% in 2015. This clearly point towards the fact that software testing is an
important aspect of software development but despite this level of importance, software testing is
still not seen as a lucrative career. Waychal and Capretz (2016) surveyed 73 junior students of a
reputable computer engineering program and 22 testing professionals and concluded that the
testing profession is far from being popular with only 7% of the students who are thinking of
taking up testing careers and 73% of the professionals regarded their roles as second-class
citizenship citing not being involved in the decision process, not getting credit for good quality
products but getting discredited for bad quality products and exerting pressure on testers to
compensate for developers overruns as the major reasons for thinking so. But this doesnt
discount the fact that software testing plays an indispensable role in software development as it
continues to be a part of every software development methodology that have emerged. This
paper delves on that claim and investigates the co-evolution of software testing and software
development over the years which tackles the first research question How is software testing
applied in software development from the 1950s until the 2010s? Also, to give emphasis on how
important testing software is, a supplementary research question What are the real-life
examples of expensive and fatal software errors that could have been prevented by software
testing? The next section of this paper provides a brief review on software testing to familiarize
the readers with the basic concepts of software testing and terminologies used to expound the
research questions. Section 3 and 4 answers the research questions and the last section provides a
narrative conclusion to this study.
II. Software Testing Concepts
A. Objectives of testing
Discover defects, errors and deficiencies in the software
Determine system capabilities and limitations of the software
Improve the quality of the software.
Ensure software meets the business and customer requirements.
B. Types of testing
Black box or Functional testing purely observes the results from some input values without
any analysis of a code. Its main purpose is ensuring proper acceptance of the input and
correctly production of the output.
White box or Structural testing allows examination of the code but no attention is given to its
specifications. It is basically a process of monitoring how the system processes some input
values to provide the desired output.
C. Levels of testing
Unit Testing is the first level of testing usually done by the developer or someone with the
proper knowledge of the core program design to isolate each part of the program and ensure
individual parts are correct in terms of requirements and functionality.
Integration Testing is usually done after unit testing wherein modules are assembled and
integrated to form the complete package to be tested to uncover errors associated with
System Testing rigorously tests the whole application to ensure that it meets the specified
quality standards.
Acceptance Testing is done to ensure that the software meets the intended specifications and
satisfies the clients requirement. It employs a black box type of testing as it focuses on the
systems functionality rather that its code. Alpha testing takes place at developers sites and
involves testing of the software by internal staff before it is released to the external customers
while Beta testing takes place at customers sites and involves testing by a group of customers
who use the system at their own locations and provide feedback.
D. Limitations of software testing
Even after satisfactory completion of the testing phase in software development, it is
impossible to guarantee that the developed system is free from any error since it is not
practical to test exhaustibly with respect to each value that the input can assume (Saini, & Rai,
2013). An example would be a small 100-line program with some nested paths and a single
loop executing less than twenty times may require 10 to the power of 14 possible paths to be
executed which would take 3170 years to test assuming each path can be evaluated in a
millisecond (Pressman, 2001).
1. Software testing cannot guarantee that the software being developed is free from any
error. It can only show the presence of errors but never show their absence (Miller, &
Howden, 1981).
2. Software testing is not factor in deciding whether to release a product on deadline with
errors or compromise the deadline to fix the errors (Pressman, 2001).
3. Software testing cannot establish that a product functions properly under all conditions
but can only establish that it does not function properly under specific conditions (Istyaq,
& Zargar, 2010).
4. Software testing does not help in finding root causes which resulted in injection of
defects in the first place. Locating root causes of failures can help in preventing injection
of such faults in the future (Anupriya & Ajeta, 2012).
Software testing is a trade-off among budget, time and quality and the optimistic stopping rule in
software testing is when either reliability meets the requirement or the benefit from continuing
testing cannot justify the testing cost (Yang, & Chao, 1995).
III. Software testing in software development
There were only two steps in the software development process in the 1950s, an analysis step
followed by a coding step (Royce, 1987). This was all that is required before as the computer
programs developed are to be operated by those who built it and software problems were
correlated with hardware reliability putting the focus on the latter in the earliest days of digital
computer (Gelperin, 1988). However, the concepts of debugging and testing were not clearly
differentiated and were used interchangeably. Charles Baker distinguished the two terms in a
review of Dan McCrackens book Digital Computer Programming (Gelperin, 1988). Baker
(1957) defined debugging as ensuring the program runs and testing as ensuring the program
solves the problem. Both of which ensures the software satisfies its requirements. A decade later,
people realized that software was easier to modify than hardware and did not require expensive
production environments to develop (Boehm, 2006). This resulted to a shift towards a code and
fix approach which is simply writing a code and fixing the problem in the code (Connell, Carta,
& Baer, 1993). It preferred frequent patches over the exhaustive critical design reviews before
execution (measure twice, cut once) but this often resulted in unwieldy spaghetti code and
pulling all-nighters to hastily patch faulty code to meet deadlines (Boehm, 2006).
Spaghetti code problem was addressed by Dijkstras famous letter to ACM communications
mentioning the harms of go-to statements (Dijkstra, 1968). Bhm and Jacopini (1966) proved
that sequential programs could be constructed without go-to statements in their paper Flow
diagrams, Turing machines and languages with only two formation rules which led to the
Structured Programming movement (Boehm, 2006). This is significant as it may have had only
eliminated a fraction of sequence and control errors but these were important as they tend to
persist until the later, more difficult stages of validation in critical real-time programs (Boehm,
Brown, & Lipow 1976). This claim is supported by the study of Air Force Systems Command
called Information Processing/Data Automation Implications of Air Force Command and
Control Requirements in the 1980s or CCIP-85 which showed that the 27% sequencing and
control errors in 7 batch programs were carried out to its final validation phase accounting to
51% of the total errors (Boehm, & Haile, 1985). But as computer applications increased in
number, cost and complexity. It was evident that computer systems contained many deficiencies,
and the cost of recovering and fixing these problems was substantial (Gelperin, 1988). This
initiated users and managers to place greater emphasis on a more effective approach at detecting
problems before product delivery.
Traditional software development
A synthesis of the 1950s and the 1960s paradigm was provided by Royces version of the
waterfall model in the 1970s establishing defined phases of software development,
incorporating the stakeholder perspective into the development process and emphasizing
requirement analysis and the importance of testing activities (Pettichord, 2002). It is a sequential
software development model that goes downward from requirement analysis, design, coding,
testing and maintenance with each phase proceeding in order without any overlapping. The
testing phase can be categorized into unit testing, system testing and acceptance testing which
verifies that the individual components and integrated solution have minimized error probability
and meets the software requirement specification. Defects found during the testing stage are
provided as feedback to the developers who in turn fix the issues (Dorette, 2011). But placing the
testing activities at the end of its sequential process had become one of its most significant
criticism as this often results in increased cost (Gillenson, Racer, Richardson, & Zhang, 2011) as
Boehm and Basili (2001) observed, it is 100 times more expensive to find and fix software
problems after delivery than during its requirements and design phase. Several data which
supports this claim were enumerated during the expert workshop at the 2002 Metrics
Symposium, one of which is Don ONeills description of IBM Rochester data which had a ratio
of defect slippage from code to field of about 117:1. Another example is, Yoshiro Matsumotos
software factory of 2600 IT workers which had an average rework time after shipment of 22.85
hours versus less than 10 minutes if the work had been done prior to shipment (Shull, Basili,
Boehm, Winsor Brown, Costa, Lindvall, & Zelkowitz, 2002, p. 2). Dalal, Horgan and Kettenring
(1993) considered software testing as a coordinated effort that is part of the overall software
engineering process. It was no longer just seen as an error finding activity but as a prevention
activity that not only reduced costs but improved the quality of the software being developed. It
was identified as an important part of a cooperative process where multiple actors such as testers,
designers, programmers and users link together to accomplish a collective set of tasks over the
entire software development life cycle (Kraut, & Streeter, 1995). This has proved beneficial as
Waligora and Coon (1997) assessed the value of this change in the Flight Dynamics Division at
NASA Goddard wherein they compared a typical waterfall life cycle in which the system is fully
developed before any system testing begins against a new approach which involves an
independent test group who did all the functional testing and performed testing as soon as the
first build is completed. The new testing approach declined the overall system testing effort from
41% to 31%, reaped 35% cost savings and the average error rate decreased to 1.5 errors per
KSLOC from 4.3 errors per KSLOC. This also supports Schachs suggestion to perform testing
throughout the software life cycle and predicted that testing in the future will prevent faults
rather than detect them (Schach, 1996) but Paul Rook had known this exactly a decade earlier
and proposed a software development process which can be presumed to be the extension of the
waterfall model called The V-Model (Rook, 1986). The V-Model associates a testing phase for
each phase of its development life cycle forming a V-shape instead of moving down in a linear
way. It employs testing activities such as test designing at the beginning of the project
incorporating testing into the entire software development life cycle. A typical V-model typically
consists of unit testing performed during the module design phase, integration testing performed
during the architectural design phase, system testing performed during the system design phase
and acceptance testing performed during the requirements analysis phase (Tanya, & Gupta,
2011). The waterfall methodology has continuously to evolve in the decades following its
introduction (Benediktsson, Dalcher, & Thorbergsson, 2006) but the advancement in its testing
application is insignificant. The succeeding methodologies such as the Iterative waterfall
model suggested feedback paths in the waterfall model from every phase to its preceding phases
creating iterations to allow the correction of the errors committed during a phase that are
detected in later phases which mandates not only to rework the design, but also to redo the
coding and the system testing (Ghezzi, Jazayeri, & Mandrioli, 2002). The Unified Process
Model developed by James Rumbaugh, Grady Booch and Ivar Jacobson during the late 1980s
and early 1990s is a use-case driven, architecture-centric, iterative and incremental framework
which employs a transition phase that transfers the software from the developer to the end-user
for beta testing and acceptance testing (Jacobson, Booch, & Rumbaugh, 1999). The Spiral
Model was proposed in 1988 by Barry Boehm in his paper A spiral model of software
development and enhancement wherein unit testing, integration testing and acceptance testing
are performed between coding and implementation like the classical waterfall method but repeats
the same set of life-cycle phases until development is complete with main emphasis given on risk
analysis (Boehm, & Hansen, 2001). The Incremental / Iterative model divides the waterfall
cycle into smaller iterations with each passing through design, development, testing and
implementation phases subsequently working on the software being developed (Jalote 2005).
Other software methodologies such as Rapid Application Development and Rational Unified
Process have emerged as well but will not be discussed on this paper as these employs more or
less the same concept of testing as the waterfall but on 2001, a group of 17 IT professionals
with similar objectives and idea convened in in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA and formulated a set
of principles to uncover better ways of developing software by prioritizing individuals and
interactions over processes and tools, working software over comprehensive documentation,
customer collaboration over contract negotiation and responding to change over following a plan
called the Agile manifesto (Talby, Keren, Hazzan, & Dubinsky, 2006), this would eventually
change software testing dramatically.
Agile Testing
The Agile software development methods evolved in the mid-1990s as a reaction to the issues
that traditional software development methodologies had with cost of changing the requirements,
long time to market and high risk of failing the expectations of end-users in a changing business
environment (Mwambe, & Lutsaievskyi, 2013). Agile software methodologies such as Extreme
Programming, Scrum, Lean Development and Crystal follow the core principles of the agile
manifesto (Rajasekhar, & Shafi, 2014). Agile testing is a software testing practice that follows
the principles of the agile manifesto. There is no specific testing phase in agile methods unlike in
the traditional software development process, instead it is integrated into the development
process (Abrahamsson, Salo, Ronkainen, & Warsta, 2002) and involves all members of the
project team. Test cases are created in a collaborative manner among subject matter expert,
tester, developer, business analyst and customer. The significant difference in agile testing is the
quick feedback from testing which helps developers figure the issues in very early stage
(Tripathi, & Goyal, 2014). Systematic, a CMMI Level 5 company, doubled productivity and cut
defects by 40% compared to waterfall projects in 2006 by adopting Scrum Agile methodology
and focusing on early testing and time to fix builds (Jakobsen, & Sutherland, 2009, p. 333).
Both development and testing team takes responsibility for analyzing the business specifications
and define the Sprint goal or the goal of each set period of time during which specific work
must be completed and made ready for review. The testing team defines the scope of the testing
that is validated and approved by the entire team and the client after which the testing team
works on the test case design and document these either in a testing tool or in an excel
spreadsheet to be handed over to the development team and project sponsor from the business
side to ensure that the test coverage is as complete as possible. This is performed simultaneously
with the development team coding the modules in the very first Sprint.
The testing team then begins their testing in the test environment once the test case review and
modifications are completed for a Sprint. Defects found during testing are logged in a defect
tracking tool since fixing these are taken care of only during the next Sprint. The team along
with the project sponsor determines which defects are to be fixed in the current iteration on a
priority basis at the end of each Sprint and this continues until all planned Sprints are
completed. When the code is ready to test after the end of each Sprint, the testing team works
with the development team to execute test cases in the development environment to identify the
early stage defects so that the developers can fix them during the next round on a priority basis.
This process is repeated throughout the development process.
Scrum is an example of an agile software methodology. It is an iterative framework which breaks
the complete project into small shippable product increment deliverables that can be tested at the
end of each sprint and employs a daily 15-minute stand-up meetings and delivering workable
software at end of every sprint (Beedle, & Schwaber, 2001) which normally last 2-4 weeks.
There is no separate testing team in a Scrum team instead developers are expected to perform
unit testing during the design and development stage of a sprint and creates test cases for the next
sprint and execute test cases and document its results during the quality assurance stage
(Downey, & Sutherland, 2013).
Extreme Programming
Extreme Programming (XP) is another example of an agile software methodology which is
developed by Kent Beck in 1999 to address the specific needs of software development
conducted by small teams in the face of vague and changing requirements (Beck, 1999). Beck
imposes XP tests to be isolated and automatic (Beck, 1999). XP unit tests are written by
programmers while the functional tests are written by customers with the help of at least one
dedicated tester to translate the testing ideas of the customer into real, automatic and isolated
test. These two are the heart of the XP testing strategy as Beck implied in his paper Extreme
Programming Explained. SCRUM and Extreme Programming are just two examples of agile
software methodologies. Other methodologies which adopts the Agile manifesto are Lean
Software Development, Crystal Methodology, Dynamic Systems Development Method and
Feature-Driven Development which are not discussed on this paper since these methodologies
has the same application of agile testing, which are, integrating software testing into the entire
software development cycle and software testing being a collaborative effort among business
users, business analysts, developers, testers and managers to guarantee the business value desired
by the client is delivered with a sustainable and continuous rhythm (Baddoo, Cuadrado, Gallego,
O'Connor, Muslera, Smolander, & Messnarz, 2009) however, software engineering practices
which these agile methodologies may employ provides significant innovation over the traditional
testing techniques. This claim are proved and discussed in the succeeding subsections.
Test-Driven Development
Test-driven development is not a testing technique despite its name, but rather a development
and design technique which imposes tests to be written prior to the production code (Beck,
2001). The first step is developer writing tests that concentrate on testing a function (i.e. if a
system should be able to handle multiple inputs, the tests should reflect multiple inputs) which
enables the developer to focus on the requirements before writing the code. This is a subtle but
differentiating feature of a test-driven development versus writing a regular unit test after the
code is written. Next, all tests should be run and ensure the new test fails to confirm that the new
test requires new codes to be written because the required behavior already exists. This rules out
the possibility that the new test is flawed and will always pass. Codes that causes the test to pass
is written after and the test is ran again to see if all the test cases pass to confirm that the written
code meets the test requirements and does not break any existing functions. Refactoring or
restructuring an existing code without changing its external behavior to make the test pass should
be done and the test cases should be re-run throughout each refactoring phase to give confidence
to the developer that the process is not altering any existing functionality. The cycle is repeated
starting with another new test until the completion of the software (Astels, 2003). Refactoring is
assumed to have positive effects on a softwares extensibility, modularity, reusability,
complexity, maintainability and efficiency (Mens, & Tourw, 2004) but Kannangara and
Wijayanake (2015) conducted a study on 4,922 non-refactored code and 5,005 refactored code
and found no improvement in code analyzability, changeability and time behavior after applying
ten refactoring techniques. The results showed that there is an improvement in code
maintainability in the refactored code however. While software maintenance is not in the scope
of this research, it is worth noting that it is a serious cost factor in software development as the
relative cost for maintaining a software and managing its evolution represents more than 90% of
its total cost in year 2000 (Erlikh, 2000) with annual software maintenance cost in the US has
been estimated to be more than $70 billion (Sutherland, 1995).
Acceptance Test-Driven Development
Acceptance Test-Driven Development encompasses the same practices of a regular test-driven
development but differs on writing acceptance tests instead of unit tests coding (Vodde, &
Larman, 2010). The developer, tester and business customer collaboratively create acceptance
tests prior to coding through requirements analysis and are specified in business domain terms.
Failing these provide quick feedback that the requirements are not being met. This gives an
interrelation between tests and requirements connoting tests which do not refer to a requirement
are considered as unneeded and acceptance tests developed after implementation represents new
requirements (Pugh, 2010). Results in the literature reported that ATDD improves
communications between customers and developers, improve productivity and allows to
automatically test software at the business level. An empirical study has been conducted on the
application of ATDD in the migration of independent text mode applications supporting all its
activity (taking and managing orders, cashing, reporting, etc.) into a web-based environment for
a restaurant chain company with only 6 months given as a deadline. The project was delivered
after five and a half months and concluded that the use of ATDD improved the understanding
and capturing of the business requirements. The study also reported that the participation of the
customer in the specification and definition of the acceptance test was the key factor (Latorre,
Behavior-Driven Development
Behavior-Driven Development is originally developed by Dan North as a response to the issues
in Test-Driven Development and Acceptance Test-Driven Development, one of which, is using
an unstructured and unbounded natural language to describe the test cases which are hard to
understand especially to business stakeholders and end users who may have little software
development knowledge. It is regarded as the evolution of TDD and ATDD. In BDD, The tests
are clearly written and easily understandable because it utilizes a ubiquitous language that
helps stakeholders specify their tests (Keogh, 2010). Cucumber, Jbehave (Java), and RSpec
(Ruby) are some of the toolkits which support BDD and employs a Domain-Specific Language
(DSL) for defining scenario and derive executable code by a regular expression like the Gherkin
language (Chelimsky, Astels, Dennis, & Hellesoy, 2011).
Pair Programming
Pair programming is an essential XP practice that William and Kessler (2002) defined as a style
of programming in which two programmers work side by side at one computer, continually
collaborating on the same design, algorithm, code, or test. One of the pair, called the driver, is
typing at the computer or writing down a design. The other partner, called the navigator, has
many jobs, one of which is to observe the work of the driver, looking for tactical and strategic
defects which occur when the driver is headed down the wrong path. The navigator is the
strategic, long-range thinker. Another great thing is that the driver and the navigator can
brainstorm on-demand at any time and switch roles periodically (p. 208). It contributes to
testing in that it amounts to a review of the code or document produced and can be considered as
one of XPs strengths over traditional programming in terms of testing. Xu (2006) investigated
the effects of extreme programming practice in game development by conducting a case study
with 12 advanced undergraduate students who were assigned to implement a simple game
application, 4 Pairs used XP practices such as pair programming, test-driven development and
refactoring and 4 individuals applied traditional waterfall-like approach. The average number of
test cases passed by the pairs were 11.8 contrary to 9.8 that were passed by those who worked
individually per 291.7 and 180.5 line of codes respectively. The results of the case study showed
that the programmer paired students completed their tasks faster and with higher quality than
individuals and passed more test cases and wrote cleaner code with higher cohesion. However,
one of its criticisms is that it doubles code development expenses and manpower needs but in
1999, a controlled experiment at the University of Utah investigated the economics of pair
programming involving advanced undergraduates in a software engineering course. 1/3 of the
class coded class projects by themselves and the rest of the class completed their projects using
pair programming. The study disproves that development costs double with pair programming as
pairs only spent about 15% more time than the individuals and significantly, their resulting code
has about 15% fewer defects (Cunningham, Jeffries, Kessler & Williams, 2000). The 15%
increase in code development expense is recovered in the reduction in defects, let a program of
50,000 lines of code be developed by individual programmers and paired programmers and
considering that programmers inject 100 defects per thousand lines of code according to Watts
Humphrey in his book A Discipline for Software Engineering (Humphrey, 1995). Let a
thorough development process removes 70% of the defects leaving the individuals to have 1,500
defects in their program and paired programmers would have 15% less or 1,275 in total (225 less
defects). Industry data reports per Watts Humphrey, hours spent on each defect takes between
3.3 and 8.8 hours (Humphrey, 1995), using a conservative factor of 4 hours per defect, the extra
225 defects by individual programmers would cost 900 hours more than the paired programmers
hours (Cockburn, & Williams, 2000). This supports the economic benefit of early defect
identification and removal in pair programming.
Exploratory Testing
Exploratory Testing is where the developer / tester learns, design and execute the tests
simultaneously (Bach, 2004). It means that the developers / testers are exploring the software,
learning its functionality and performing test execution based on their intuition which enables
them to control the design of the tests while executing and learning more about the software
(Bhatti, & Ghazi, 2010). It is valuable in situations that requires rapid feedback, learning of
product, not having enough time for systematic testing approaches and testing from an end user
point of view (Naseer, & Zulqar, 2010). Tuomikoski and Tervonen (2007) performed an action
research about the application of exploratory testing in a company with 20 years of software
development experience which consists of developers and test engineers with an average of 8
years of software development experience and concluded that exploratory testing provides an
easy way to familiarize oneself with new features and almost everyone could participate in
exploratory testing sessions. Itkonen (2011) supports this on his case study on the defect-
reporting contribution of different organizational groups in three software product development
organizations using exploratory testing and accounts 21.5% of the defects found to the Internal
Miscellaneous team, 18.1% were found by customers, 17.0% were found by developers, 7.3%
were found by the sales & consulting team and only 9.8% were found by professional testers.
Automation as the core of Agile Testing
Crispin and Gregory (2009) claimed that test automation is the key to a successful agile
development and the core of agile testing. A research conducted by Collins, Dias-Neto and De
Lucena (2012) had outstanding results when the automation of tests applied in a scrum agile
methodology in three different software projects obtained a faster application of testing and
promoted team harmony, collaboration, knowledge transfer and fast feedback from sprint results.
Automation of software test activities such as development and execution of test scripts, test
requirements, unit testing, functional testing and regression testing are encouraged in Agile
testing to diminish the time used doing repetitive tasks manually since software delivery happens
in Agile methods in a very short iteration (Gil, Diaz, Orozco, De la Hoz, Morales, 2016) but the
tradeoff is high initial costs especially at the time of writing the test cases or configuring the
automation framework (Haugset & Hanssen, 2008). Karhu, Repo, Taipale and Smolander (2009)
observed in their empirical research on the use of software testing automation on five
organizational units published in their conference paper "Empirical Observations on Software
Testing Automation" that Automated software testing may reduce costs and improve quality
because of more testing in less time, but it causes new costs in, for example, implementation,
maintenance, and training (p. 3). Having said that, test automation remains to be the current
trend in most types of software testing. Practitest (2017) is an end to end QA and Test
management solutions company which surveyed 1,600 professional testers from 61 countries in
2017 and found that of 87% of their respondents adopting agile methodology, 85% utilizes
automation in their project with 75% having automated functional or regression testing, 41%
stress testing and 37% automated unit testing. While waterfall method remains significant even
with a decrease from 39% in 2016 to 37%, another methodology has reflected with a significant
figure. DevOps usage has risen from 14% in 2015 to 26% in 2017 and seems to be an emerging
trend in software development after the traditional waterfall and agile methods.
DevOps: The emerging trend after Agile
Dimensional Research reported in January 2017 that 88% are either adopting DevOps or
considering it and only 6% have no plans or have not even considered it. However, only 10%
have fully embraced DevOps across their entire company, 25% have just started and 24% have
only a few teams that are fully immersed (Dimensional Research 2017). This is also supported
by the 2016-2017 World Quality Report conducted by Capgemini, Hewlett Packard Enterprise
and Sogeti which reported the rise in percentage of DevOps usage in more than half of their
projects from 21% in 2015 to 32% in 2016 and DevOps usage in almost half of their projects
from 17% in 2015 to 32% in 2016 (Buenen & Muthukrishnan, 2016). This just proves that
DevOps continues to grow but is still in an emerging stage. DevOps integrates software
development and operational deployment continuously, employing Continuous Testing, a
process involving automation of the testing process and prioritization of test cases to help reduce
the time between the introduction of errors and their detection with the aim of eliminating root
causes effectively (Gotlieb, Marijan & Sen, 2013). Ernst and Saff (2003) introduced the concept
of continuous testing in their experiment which showed that it can help reduce overall
development time by as much as 15% and suggested that it can be an effective tool in reducing
the waiting time in software development.
IV. The real cost of insufficient software testing
Software is used in safety-critical areas such as aeronautics and national defense, only to name a
few, which the smallest software flaw could have devastating consequences that can lead to
significant damage including the loss of life hence adequate and extensive testing plays an
important role in developing software intended for these industries. The following are some
examples of catastrophic accidents that were caused by faulty software either directly or
indirectly: On February 25, 1991, a Patriot system failed to track and intercept an incoming Iraqi
Scud missile at an army base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The failure let the Scud missile reach its
target, killing 28 American soldiers and wounding roughly 100 others. The failures cause was a
rounding error resulting in a clock drift that worsened with increased operational time between
system reboots. The army had already worked out a software fix for the problem but the updated
software arrived at the base just one day late (Cunningham, Michael, & Zhivich, 2012). Another
example is the explosion of Ariane 5 launcher on June 4 1996 just 37 seconds after its liftoff.
The rocket has been developed for a decade and the expense is estimated at $7 billion. The cause
of the software failure was the attempted conversion of a 64-bit floating point number to a 16-bit
signed integer. The input was larger than 32,767 and outside the range representable by a 16-bit
signed integer so the conversion failed due to an overflow. The loss of altitude control resulted
from the shutdown of both the active and backup computers at the same time when the error
arose. The report stated that there was no test to verify that the SRI would behave correctly when
being subjected to the countdown and flight time sequence and the trajectory of Ariane 5. This,
and many other ground tests could have been performed during acceptance testing and would
have exposed the failure (Nuseibeh, 1997). In addition to this, The US-based National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported, in its 2002 study, that the aerospace industry
alone lost over a $2.6 billion and incurred 163 fatalities from 1993 to 1999 due to avoidable
software defects.
V. Conclusion
The abovementioned examples illustrate just how important it is to ensure the reliability and
robustness of a software. Software errors can be very expensive and fatal and we cannot test
exhaustively just to guarantee that a software is free from any error that might cause any of those
catastrophic events from happening again but software testing continues to co-evolve with
software development from its earliest approach of just fixing the errors after coding to having a
separate testing phase performed by independent professional testers to integrating the discipline
throughout the whole software development life cycle and being performed by end users to
automating the process and getting better results than the traditional methods. The studies and
results presented on this paper show that the progression of software testing over the years does
not only provide alternative ways of minimizing errors but new ways of engineering software as
well hence we can conclude that software testing remains to be an absolute necessity in software
Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., & Warsta, J. (2002). Agile software development
methods - Review and analysis. VTT Publications, 478.
Andersson, M., & Bergstrand, J. (1995). Formalizing use cases with message sequence charts
(Unpublished master's thesis). Lund Institute of Technology.
Anupriya, & Ajeta. (2014). Software Testing - Principles, Lifecycle, Limitations and Methods.
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 3(10), 1000-1002.
Astels, D. R. (2003). Test-Driven Development: A Practical Guide. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bach, J. (2004). The Testing Practitioner (2nd edition). UTN.
Baker, C. (1957). Review of D.D. McCracken's Digital Computer Programming. Mathematical
tables and other aids to computation, 11(60), 298-305.
Beck, K. (2001). Aim, fire [test-first coding]. IEEE Software, 18(5), 87-89.
Beck, K. (1999). Extreme programming explained: embrace change (1st edition). Boston:
Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
Benediktsson, O., Dalcher, D., & Thorbergsson, H. (2006). Comparison of Software
Development Life Cycles: A Multiproject Experiment. IEE Proceedings Software, 153(3), 87-
Bhatti, K., & Ghazi, A. (2010). Eectiveness of Exploratory Testing An empirical scrutiny of the
challenges and factors aecting the defect detection eciency (Master's thesis, Blekinge Institute
of Technology, 2010) (pp. 1-78). SWELL (Swedish Software Verication and Validation
Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., & Lipow, M. (1976). Quantitative evaluation of software quality.
ICSE '76 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Software engineering, 592-605.
Boehm, B. W., & Haile, A. C. (1985). Information Processing/Data Automation Implications of
Air Force Command and Control Requirements in the 1980s (CCIP-85). Space and Missile
Systems Organization Los Angeles CA, 11.
Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE, 21(5),
Boehm, B., & Basili, V. R. (2001). Software Defect Reduction Top 10 List. Foundations of
empirical software engineering: the legacy of Victor R. Basili, 426, 135-137.
Boehm, B. W., & Hansen, W. J. (2001). The Spiral Model as a Tool for Evolutionary
Acquisition. The Journal of Defense Software Engineering.
Boehm, B. (2006). A View of 20th and 21st Century Software Engineering. ICSE '06
Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, 12-29.
Buenen, M., & Muthukrishnan, G. (2017). World Quality Report 2016-2017 (8th ed., Rep.).
Capgemini Publications.
Bhm, C., & Jacopini, G. (1966). Flow diagrams, Turing machines and languages with only two
formation rules. Communications of the ACM, 9(5), 366-371.
Chelimsky, D., Astels, D., Dennis, Z., Hellesoy, A., Helmkamp, B., & North, D. (2011). The
RSpec Book: Behaviour Driven Development with RSpec, Cucumber, and Friends. Pragmatic
Cockburn, A., & Williams, L. (2001). The Costs and Benefits of Pair Programming. Boston:
Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co.
Collins, E., Neto, A., & De Lucena, V. F. (2012). Strategies for Agile Software Testing
Automation: An Industrial Experience. Computer Software and Applications Conference
Workshops (COMPSACW), 2012 IEEE 36th Annual, 440-445.
Connell, M. C., Carta, J. J., & Baer, D. M. (1993). Programming generalization of in-class
transition skills: Teaching preschoolers with developmental delays to self-assess and recruit
contingent teacher praise. 1993 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25-33.
Cordeiro, L., Fischer, B., & Marques-Silva, J. (2010). Continuous Verification of Large
Embedded Software Using SMT-Based Bounded Model Checking. Proceeding ECBS '10
Proceedings of the 2010 17th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering
of Computer-Based Systems, 160-169.
Crispin, L., & Gregory, J. (2009). Agile Testing: A Practical Guide for Testers and Agile Teams.
Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Dalal, S., Horgan, J., & Kettenring, J. (1993). Reliable software and communication: software
quality, reliability, and safety. ICSE '93 Proceedings of the 15th international conference on
Software Engineering, 425-435.
Deuter, A. (2013). Slicing the V-model Reduced effort, higher flexibility. 2013 IEEE 8th
International Conference on Global Software Engineering, 1-10.
Dijkstra, E. W. (2002). Cooperating sequential processes. The origin of concurrent
programming, 65-138.
Dorette, J. J. (2011). Comparing Agile XP and Waterfall Software Development Processes in
two Start-up Companies (Master's thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, 2011). Sweden:
Chalmers Publication.
Downey, S., & Sutherland, J. (2013). Scrum Metrics for Hyper Productive Teams: How They
Fly like Fighter Aircraft. Proc. 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1530-
Erlikh, L. (2000). Leveraging legacy system dollars for e-business. (IEEE) IT Professional, 2(3),
Gelperin, D., & Hetzel, B. (1988). The growth of software testing. CACM, 31(6).
Ghezzi, C., Jazayeri, M., & Mandrioli, D. (2002). Fundamentals of software engineering. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Gil, C., Diaz, J., Orozco, M., De La Hoz, A., De La Hoz, E., & Morales, R. (2016). Agile testing
practices in software quality: State of the art review. Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Information Technology, 92(1), 28-36.
Gillenson, M. L., Racer, M. J., Richardson, S. M., & Zhang, X. (2011). Engaging Testers Early
and Throughout The Software Development Process: Six Models and a Simulation Study.
Journal of Information Technology Management, 22(1), 8-27.
Gotlieb, A., Marijan, D., & Sen, S. (2013). Test case prioritization for continuous regression
testing: An industrial case study. Software Maintenance (ICSM), 2013 29th IEEE International
Conference on, 540-543.
Haugset, B., & Hanssen, G. (2008). Automated Acceptance Testing: a Literature Review and an
Industrial Case Study. Agile 2008 Conference, 27-38.
Hirsch, P. (1972). Whats wrong with the air traffic control system? Datamation, 48-53.
Humphrey, W. S. (1995). A discipline for software engineering. Massachusetts, Boston:
Humphrey, W. S. (1995). Why should you use a personal software process? ACM SIGSOFT
Software Engineering Notes, 20(3), 33-36.
ISTQB (International Software Testing Qualifications Board). (2016). ISTQB Worldwide
Software Testing Practices Report 2015 - 2016 (p. 13, Rep.). Brussels: ISTQB.
Istyaq, S., & Zargar, A. (2010). Debugging, Advanced Debugging and Run time Analysis.
(IJCSE) International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, 2(2), 246-249.
Itkonen, J. (2011). Empirical studies on exploratory software testing (Doctoral dissertation, Aalto
University, 2011). Helsinki: Aalto University publication series.
Jacobson, I., Booch, G., & Rumbaugh, J. (1999). The Unified Software Development Process.
Jakobsen, C., & Sutherland, J. (2009). Scrum and CMMI Going from Good to Great. Agile
Conference, 2009, 333 - 337.
Jalote, P. (2005). An Integrated Approach to Software engineering (3rd edition). New York:
Kannangara, S. H., & Wijayanayake, W. M. (2015). An Empirical Evaluation of Impact of
Refactoring on Internal and External Measures of Code Quality. International Journal of
Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), 6(1), 51-68.
Karhu, K., Repo, T., Taipale, O., & Smolander, K. (2009). Empirical Observations on Software
Testing Automation. Software Testing Verification and Validation, 2009. ICST '09. International
Conference on Cite this publication.
Keogh, E. (2010). BDD: A Lean Toolkit in Processing of Lean Software & Systems Conference.
Khan, E., & Khan, F. (2014). Importance of Software Testing in Software Development Life.
IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 11(2), 2nd ser., 120-123.
Kraut, R. E., & Streeter, L. A. (1995). Coordination in Software Development. Communications
of the ACM, 38(3), 69-81.
Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2010). Practices for Scaling Lean & Agile Development: Large,
Multisite, and Offshore Product Development with Large-Scale Scrum. Boston: Practices for
Scaling Lean & Agile Development: Large, Multisite, and Offshore Product Development with
Large-Scale Scrum.
Latorre, R. (2014). A successful application of a Test-Driven Development strategy in the
industrial environment. Empirical Software Engineering, 19(3), 753-773.
Li, E. Y. (1990). Software Testing in a System Development Process: A Life Cycle Perspective.
Journal of Systems Management, 41(8), 23-31.
LIONS, J. L. (1996). Flight 501 Failure: Report by the Inquiry Board. Retrieved from
Mens, T., & Tourwe, T. (2004). Survey of software refactoring. IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering, 30(2), 126-139.
Miller, E., & Howden, W. E. (1981). Tutorial, software testing & validation techniques. IEEE
Computer Society Press.
Morgan, T., & Roberts, J. (2002). An Analysis of the Patriot Missile System. Retrieved from
Mwambe, O., & Lutsaievskyi, O. (2013). Selection and Application of Software Testing
Techniques to Specific Conditions of Software Projects. International Journal of Computer
Applications, 70(18), 22-28.
Naseer, A., & Zulfiqar, M. (2010). Investigating Exploratory Testing in Industrial Practice
(Master's thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2010). SWELL (Swedish Software
Verication and Validation Excellence).
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2002). The Economic Impacts of Inadequate
Infrastructure for Software Testing (pp. 1-11, Rep.). Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Health,
Social, and Economics Research.
Nuseibeh, B. (1997). Ariane 5: Who Dunnit? IEEE Software archive, 14(3), 15-16.
O'Connor, R., Baddoo, N., Cuadrado-Gallego, J., Muslera, R., Smolander, K., & Messnarz, R.
(2009). Software Process Improvement: 16th European Conference. Spain: Springer Science &
Business Media.
Pettichord, B. (2002). Design for Testability. Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference.
Phaphoom, N., Sillitti, A., & Succi, G. (n.d.). Pair Programming and Software Defects An
Industrial Case Study. XP 2011: Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme
Programming, 208-222.
Practitest. (2017). 2017 State of Testing Report (pp. 1-22, Rep.). PractiTest & Tea Time with
Pressman, R. S. (2001). Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach (5th edition). Boston:
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Pugh, K. (2011). Lean-Agile Acceptance Test-Driven Development: Better Software through
Collaboration (1st edition). Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Rajasekhar, P., & Mahammad Shafi, R. (2014). Agile Software Development and Testing:
Approach and Challenges in Advanced Distributed Systems. Global Journal of Computer
Science and Technology: B Cloud and Distributed, 14(1).
Rook, P. (1986). Controlling software projects. Software Engineering Journal - Controlling
software projects, 1(1), 7-16.
Royce, W. W. (1987). Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and
techniques. ICSE '87 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering,
Saff, D., & Ernst, M. D. (2003). Reducing wasted development time via continuous testing.
Proceeding ISSRE '03 Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Software Reliability
Engineering, 281.
Saini, G., & Rai, K. (2013). An Analysis on Objectives, Importance and Types of Software
Testing. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, 2(9), 18-23.
Schach, S. R. (1996). Testing: principles and practice. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 28(1),
Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile Software Development with Scrum (1st edition). New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Shull, F., Basili, V., Boehm, B., Winsor Brown, A., Costa, P., Lindvall, M., . . . Zelkowitz, M.
(2002). What We Have Learned About Fighting Defects. Proceeding METRICS '02 Proceedings
of the 8th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 249.
Sutherland, J. (1995). Business objects in corporate information systems. ACM Computing
Surveys, 27(2), 274-276.
Talby, D., Keren, A., & Hazzan, O. (2006). Agile software testing in a large-scale project. IEEE
Software, 23(4), 30-37.
Taya, S., & Gupta, S. (2011). Comparative Analysis of Software Development Life Cycle
Models. IJCST - International Joint Conference on Science and Technology, 2(4), 536-539.
Testing Trends in 2017 - Sauce Labs. (n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2017.
Tripathi, V., & Goyal, A. (2014). Agile Testing Challenges and Critical success factors.
International Journal of Computer Science & Engineering Technology (IJCSET), 5(6), 66-69.
Tuomikoski, J., & Tervonen, I. (2009). Absorbing Software Testing into the Scrum Method.
Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, 10th International Conference, 199-215.
Tuteja, M., & Dubey, G. (2012). A Research Study on importance of Testing and Quality
Assurance in Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Models. International Journal of Soft
Computing and Engineering (IJSCE), 2(3), 251-257.
Vuori, M. (2011). Agile Development of Safety-Critical Software. Tampere University of
Technology. Department of Software Systems, 14, 2-109.
Waligora, S., & Coon, R. (1997). Improving the Software Testing Process in NASA's Software
Engineering Laboratory. SEL Software Process-Improvement Program IEEE Software, 12(6),
Waychal, P., & Capretz, L. (2016). Why a testing career is not the first choices of engineers?
123rd Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, 1-10.
Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the Case for
Pair Programming. IEEE Software archive, 17(4), 19-25.
Williams, L., & Kessler, R. R. (2002). Pair programming illuminated. Boston: Addison-Wesley
Xu, S. (2006). Empirical Validation of Test-Driven Pair Programming in Game Development
(Master's thesis, Laurentian University, 2006). Honolulu: Computer and Information Science,
2006 and 2006 1st IEEE/ACIS International Workshop on Component-Based Software
Yang, M., & Chao, A. (1995). Reliability-estimation and stopping-rules for software testing,
based on repeated appearances of bugs [Abstract]. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 44(2), 315-
Zhivich, M., & Cunningham, R. K. (2009). The Real Cost of Software Errors. IEEE Security &
Privacy Magazine, 7(2), 87-90.