Software Quality Assurance: Tools and Techniques
Software products are tested using various techniques. These techniques are mostly based on technical and technological diligence and verification which are conducted by an experienced examiner and the absence of which may cause quality assurance issues. Such hindrances may be tackled by using software testing processes. Currently, two most important basic processes exist in software testing industry: manual and automated testing process. The manual process is not recommended when iterative tasks are performed. Additionally, automated testing has many advantages it is time and cost effective with lesser human interference. Selection of an appropriate testing tool is still in infancy way which may lead to problems with any software company. In this research, we propose a quality framework of selection of an appropriate self-driven software quality optimization tools for regression testing by focusing on quality of the final product.
KeywordsSoftware tools Software quality Software engineering Automation testing Software behavior
This work is supported in part by the Hunan Provincial Education Department of China under Grant Numbers 18B200.
- 2.Morandini, M., Nguyen, D.C., Perini, A., Siena, A., Susi, A.: Tool-supported development with tropos: the conference management system case study. In: Luck, M., Padgham, L. (eds.) AOSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4951, pp. 182–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79488-2_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Tian, Y., Pei, K., Jana, S., Ray, B.: Deeptest: automated testing of deep-neural-network-driven autonomous cars. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 303–314. ACM, May 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3180155.3180220
- 8.Kasurinen, J., Taipale, O., Smolander, K.: Software test automation in practice: empirical observations. Adv. Softw. Eng. (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/620836
- 11.Ma, L., et al.: Secure Deep Learning Engineering: A Software Quality Assurance Perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04538 (2018)
- 12.Durak, U., Stürmer, I., Pawletta, T., Mahmoodi, S.: Quality assessment and quality improvement in model engineering. In: Model Engineering for Simulation, pp. 209–231. Academic Press (2019)Google Scholar
- 13.Chen, Y., Chen, J., Gao, Y., Chen, D., Tang, Y.: Research on software failure analysis and quality management model. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C), pp. 94–99. IEEE, July 2018Google Scholar
- 15.Raulamo-Jurvanen, P., Kakkonen, K., Mäntylä, M.: Using surveys and web-scraping to select tools for software testing consultancy. In: Abrahamsson, P., Jedlitschka, A., Nguyen Duc, A., Felderer, M., Amasaki, S., Mikkonen, T. (eds.) PROFES 2016. LNCS, vol. 10027, pp. 285–300. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49094-6_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Virk, R., Malhotra, N.: Extension of Selenium Db for Better Compatibility with the Database for Web Based Application Testing (2014)Google Scholar
- 17.Uppal, N., Chopra, V.: Design and implementation in selenium ide with web driver. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 46, 8–11 (2012)Google Scholar
- 18.Just, R., Jalali, D., Inozemtseva, L., Ernst, M.D., Holmes, R., Fraser, G.: Are mutants a valid substitute for real faults in software testing? In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 654–665. ACM, November 2014. https://doi.org/10.1145/2635868.2635929