Notes

Outline

Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering   Fifth Edition, WCB/McGraw-Hill, 2002 Stephen R. Schach srs@vuse.vanderbilt.edu

CHAPTER 15

Overview Implementation and integration Testing during the implementation and integration phase Integration testing of graphical user interfaces Product testing Acceptance testing CASE tools for the implementation and integration phase CASE tools for the complete software process

Overview (contd) Integrated environments Environments for business applications Public tool infrastructures Potential problems with environments Metrics for the implementation and integration phase Air Gourmet Case Study: Implementation and integration phase Challenges of the implementation and integration phase

Implementation and Integration Phase Up to now: Implementation followed by integration Poor approach Better Combine implementation and integration methodically

Product with 13 Modules

Implementation, Then Integration Code and test each module separately Link all 13 modules together, test product as a whole

Drivers and stubs To test module a, modules b, c, d must be stubs Empty module, or Prints message ("Procedure radarCalc called"), or Returns precooked values from preplanned test cases To test module h on its own requires a driver, which calls it Once, or Several times, or Many times, each time checking value returned Testing module d requires driver and two stubs

Implementation, Then Integration (contd) Problem 1 Stubs and drivers must be written, then thrown away after module testing is complete Problem 2 Lack of fault isolation A fault could lie in any of 13 modules or 13 interfaces In a large product with, say, 103 modules and 108 interfaces, there are 211 places where a fault might lie Solution to both problems Combine module and integration testing “Implementation and integration phase”

Top-down Implementation and Integration If module m1 calls module m2, then m1 is implemented and integrated before m2 One possible top-down ordering is a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m Another possible top-down ordering is a [a] b, e, h [a] c, d, f, i [a, d] g, j, k, l, m

Top-down Implementation and Integration (contd) Advantage 1: Fault isolation Previously successful test case fails when mNew is added to what has been tested so far Advantage 2: Stubs not wasted Stub expanded into corresponding complete module at appropriate step

Top-down Implementation and Integration (contd) Advantage 3: Major design flaws show up early Logic modules include decision-making flow of control In the example, modules a, b, c, d, g, j Operational modules perform actual operations of module In the example, modules e, f, h, i, k, l, m Logic modules are developed before operational modules

Top-down Implementation and Integration (contd) Problem 1 Reusable modules are not properly tested Lower level (operational) modules are not tested frequently The situation is aggravated if the product is well designed Defensive programming (fault shielding) Example: if (x >= 0) y = computeSquareRoot (x, errorFlag); Never tested with x < 0 Reuse implications

Bottom-up Implementation and Integration If module m1 calls module m2, then m2 is implemented and integrated before m1 One possible bottom-up ordering is  l, m, h, i, j, k, e, f, g, b, c, d, a Another possible bottom-up ordering is h, e, b i, f, c, d l, m, j, k, g [d] a [b, c, d]

Bottom-up Implementation and Integration (contd) Advantage 1 Operational modules thoroughly tested Advantage 2 Operational modules are tested with drivers, not by fault shielding, defensively programmed calling modules Advantage 3 Fault isolation

Bottom-up Implementation and Integration (contd) Difficulty 1 Major design faults are detected late Solution Combine top-down and bottom-up strategies making use of their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses

Sandwich Implementation and Integration Logic modules are implemented and integrated top-down Operational modules are implemented and integrated bottom-up Finally, the interfaces between the two groups are tested

Sandwich Implementation and Integration (contd) Advantage 1 Major design faults are caught early Advantage 2 Operational modules are thoroughly tested They may be reused with confidence Advantage 3 There is fault isolation at all times

Summary

Object-Oriented Implementation and Integration Object-oriented implementation and integration Almost always sandwich implementation and integration Objects are integrated bottom-up Other modules are integrated top-down

Management Issues during Implem. and Int. Example Design document used by Team 1 (who coded module m1) shows m1 calls m2 passing 4 parameters Design document used by Team 2 (who coded module m2) states clearly that m2 has only 3 parameters Solution The implementation and integration. process must be run by SQA

Testing during Implem. and Integration Phase Product testing Performed to ensure that the product will not fail its acceptance test Failing the acceptance test is a disaster for management The client may conclude that the developers are incompetent Worse, the client may believe that the developers tried to cheat The SQA team must ensure that the product passes its acceptance test

Integration Testing of Graphical User Interfaces GUI test cases: Mouse clicks Key presses And so on Cannot be stored in the usual way We need special CASE tools Examples: QAPartner XRunner

Strategy for Product Testing The SQA team must try to approximate the acceptance test Black box test cases for the product as a whole Robustness of product as a whole Stress testing (under peak load) Volume testing (e.g., can it handle large input files?)

Strategy for Product Testing (contd) Check all constraints Timing constraints Storage constraints Security constraints Compatibility Review all documentation to be handed over to the client Verify the documentation against the product The product (software plus documentation) is now handed over to the client organization for acceptance testing

Acceptance Testing The client determines whether the product satisfies its specifications Performed by The client organization, or The SQA team in the presence of client representatives, or An independent SQA team hired by the client

Acceptance Testing (contd) Four major components of acceptance testing Correctness Robustness Performance Documentation (Precisely what was done by developer during product testing)

CASE tools for the Implem. and Integ. Phase Bare minimum: Version control tools Examples: rcs, sccs, PCVS, SourceSafe

CASE Tools for the Complete Software Process A large organization needs an environment A medium-sized organization can probably manage with a workbench A small organization can usually manage with just tools.

Integrated Environments Usual meaning of “integrated” User interface integration Similar “look and feel” Most successful on the Macintosh There are also other types of integration

Process Integration Environment supports one specific process Subset: Technique-based environment Formerly: “method-based environment” Supports specific technique Examples: Structured systems analysis Petri nets Usually comprises Graphical support for specification, design phases Data dictionary Some consistency checking Some management support Support and formalization of manual processes Examples: Analyst/Designer, Rose, Rhapsody (for Statecharts)

Technique-Based Environments (contd) Advantage of technique-based environment Forced to use specific method, correctly Disadvantages of technique-based environment Forced to use specific method Inadequate support of programming-in-the-many

Environments for Business Application The emphasis is on ease of use GUI Standard forms for input, output Code generator Detailed design is lowest level of abstraction Expect productivity rise Examples: Foundation, Bachman Product Set

Public Tool Infrastructure PCTE—Portable common tool environment NOT an environment An infrastructure for supporting CASE tools (similar to the way an operating system provides services for user products) Adopted by ECMA (European Computer Manufacturers Association) Example implementations: IBM, Emeraude

Potential Problems with Environments No one environment is ideal for all organizations Each has its strengths and weaknesses Warning 1 Choosing the wrong environment can be worse than no environment Enforcing a wrong technique is counterproductive Warning 2 Shun environments below CMM level 3 We cannot automate a nonexistent process A CASE tool or CASE workbench is fine

Metrics for the Implem. and Integ. Phase The five basic metrics, plus Complexity metrics Number of test cases, percentage which resulted in failure Total number of faults, by types

Air Gourmet Case Study: Impl. and Integ. Phase Complete C++ implementation, Complete Java implementation, at www.mhhe.com/engcs/compsci/schach

Challenges of the Implem. and Integration Phase Management issues are paramount here Appropriate CASE tools Test case planning Communicating changes to all personnel Deciding when to stop testing