View source for Software testing

{{Short description|Checking software against a standard}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2021}}
{{Software development process|Core activities }}

[[File:TestingCup-Polish-Championship-in-Software-Testing-Katowice-2016.jpg|thumb|TestingCup {{endash}} Polish Championship in Software Testing, [[Katowice]], May 2016]]

'''Software testing''' is the act of checking whether [[software]] meets its intended objectives and satisfies expectations.

Software testing can provide objective, independent information about the [[Quality (business)|quality]] of software and the [[risk]] of its failure to a [[User (computing)|user]] or sponsor or any other stakeholder.<ref name="Kaner 1">{{Cite conference |last=Kaner |first=Cem |author-link=Cem Kaner |date=November 17, 2006 |title=Exploratory Testing |url=https://kaner.com/pdfs/ETatQAI.pdf |conference=Quality Assurance Institute Worldwide Annual Software Testing Conference |location=Orlando, FL |access-date=November 22, 2014}}</ref>

Software testing can determine the [[Correctness (computer science)|correctness]] of software for specific [[Scenario (computing)|scenarios]] but cannot determine correctness for all scenarios.<ref name="pan">{{Cite web |last=Pan |first=Jiantao |date=Spring 1999 |title=Software Testing |url=https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/des_s99/sw_testing/ |access-date=November 21, 2017 |publisher=Carnegie Mellon University |type=coursework}}</ref><ref name="Kaner2">{{Cite book |last1=Kaner |first1=Cem |title=Testing Computer Software |last2=Falk |first2=Jack |last3=Nguyen |first3=Hung Quoc |publisher=John Wiley and Sons |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-471-35846-6 |edition=2nd |location=New York |author-link=Cem Kaner}}</ref> It cannot find all [[software bug|bugs]].

Based on the criteria for measuring correctness from an [[test oracle|oracle]], software testing employs principles and mechanisms that might recognize a problem. Examples of oracles include [[specification]]s, [[Design by Contract|contracts]],<ref>{{Cite conference |last1=Leitner |first1=Andreas |last2=Ciupa |first2=Ilinca |last3=Oriol |first3=Manuel |last4=Meyer |first4=Bertrand |author-link4=Bertrand Meyer |last5=Fiva |first5=Arno |date=September 2007 |title=Contract Driven Development = Test Driven Development – Writing Test Cases |url=https://se.inf.ethz.ch/people/leitner/publications/cdd_leitner_esec_fse_2007.pdf |conference=ESEC/FSE'07: European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering 2007 |location=Dubrovnik, Croatia |access-date=December 8, 2017}}</ref> comparable products, past versions of the same product, inferences about intended or expected purpose, user or customer expectations, relevant standards, and applicable laws.

Software testing can be functional or non-functional in nature.

Software testing is often dynamic in nature; running the software to verify actual output matches expected. It can also be static in nature; reviewing [[source code|code]] and its associated [[documentation]].

Software testing is often used to answer the question: Does the software do what it is supposed to do and what it needs to do?

Information learned from software testing may be used to improve the process by which software is developed.<ref name="kolawa">{{Cite book |last1=Kolawa |first1=Adam |url=http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470042125.html |title=Automated Defect Prevention: Best Practices in Software Management |last2=Huizinga |first2=Dorota |publisher=Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-470-04212-0}}</ref>{{rp|41–43}}

A commonly suggested approach to automated testing is the "test pyramid," wherein most of the tests are [[unit tests]], followed by a smaller set of [[Integration testing|integration tests]] and finally a few [[End-to-end testing|end-to-end (e2e) tests]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Cohn |first=Mike |title=Succeeding with Agile: Software Development Using Scrum |publisher=Addison-Wesley Professional |year=2009 |isbn=978-0321579362}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Molina |first=Alessandro |title=Crafting Test-Driven Software with Python: Write test suites that scale with your applications' needs and complexity using Python and PyTest |publisher=Packt Publishing |year=2021 |isbn=978-1838642655}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Fernandes da Costa |first=Lucas |title=Testing JavaScript Applications |publisher=Manning |year=2021 |isbn=978-1617297915}}</ref>

== Economics ==

A study conducted by [[NIST]] in 2002 reported that software bugs cost the U.S. economy $59.5 billion annually. More than a third of this cost could be avoided if better software testing was performed.<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 2002 |title=The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Infrastructure for Software Testing |url=https://www.nist.gov/director/planning/upload/report02-3.pdf |access-date=December 19, 2017 |publisher=[[National Institute of Standards and Technology]]}}</ref>{{Dubious|NIST study| date = September 2014}}

[[Outsourcing]] software testing because of costs is very common, with China, the Philippines, and India being preferred destinations.<ref name="Tholons_report">{{cite web |last1=Vashistha |first1=Avinash |last2=Khan |first2=Imrana |date=October 2009 |title=Top 50 Emerging Global Outsourcing Cities: A Global Services-Tholons Study |url=https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/48694384/top-50-emerging-global-outsourcing-cities-tholons |access-date=October 25, 2025}}</ref>

== History ==

[[Glenford J. Myers]] initially introduced the separation of [[debugging]] from testing in 1979.<ref name="Myers 1979">{{Cite book |last=Myers |first=Glenford J. |url=https://archive.org/details/artofsoftwaretes00myer |title=The Art of Software Testing |publisher=John Wiley and Sons |year=1979 |isbn=978-0-471-04328-7 |author-link=Glenford Myers}}</ref> Although his attention was on breakage testing ("A successful test case is one that detects an as-yet undiscovered error."<ref name="Myers 1979" />{{rp|16}}), it illustrated the desire of the software engineering community to separate fundamental development activities, such as debugging, from that of verification.
Software testing typically includes handling software bugs {{endash}} a defect in the [[source code|code]] that causes an undesirable result.<ref name="IEEEglossary">{{Citation |date=1990 |publisher=IEEE |doi=10.1109/IEEESTD.1990.101064 |isbn=978-1-55937-067-7 |title=IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology }}</ref>{{rp|31}} Bugs generally slow testing progress and involve [[programmer]] assistance to [[debug]] and fix.

Not all defects cause a failure. For example, a defect in [[dead code]] will not be considered a failure.

A defect that does not cause failure at one point in time may lead to failure later due to environmental changes. Examples of environment change include running on new [[computer hardware]], changes in [[source data|data]], and interacting with different software.<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 31, 2011 |title=Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus |url=https://www.istqb.org/downloads/send/2-foundation-level-documents/3-foundation-level-syllabus-2011.html |access-date=December 15, 2017 |publisher=[[International Software Testing Qualifications Board]] |at=Section 1.1.2 |format=pdf |archive-date=October 28, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171028051659/http://www.istqb.org/downloads/send/2-foundation-level-documents/3-foundation-level-syllabus-2011.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>

== Goals ==

Software testing is typically goal driven.

=== Finding bugs ===

Software testing typically includes handling software bugs {{endash}} a defect in the [[source code|code]] that causes an undesirable result.<ref name="IEEEglossary">{{Citation |date=1990 |publisher=IEEE |doi=10.1109/IEEESTD.1990.101064 |isbn=978-1-55937-067-7 |title=IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology }}</ref>{{rp|31}} Bugs generally slow testing progress and involve [[programmer]] assistance to [[debug]] and fix.

Not all defects cause a failure. For example, a defect in [[dead code]] will not be considered a failure.

A defect that does not cause failure at one point in time may lead to failure later due to environmental changes. Examples of environment change include running on new [[computer hardware]], changes in [[source data|data]], and interacting with different software.<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 31, 2011 |title=Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus |url=https://www.istqb.org/downloads/send/2-foundation-level-documents/3-foundation-level-syllabus-2011.html |access-date=December 15, 2017 |publisher=[[International Software Testing Qualifications Board]] |at=Section 1.1.2 |format=pdf |archive-date=October 28, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171028051659/http://www.istqb.org/downloads/send/2-foundation-level-documents/3-foundation-level-syllabus-2011.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>

A single defect may result in multiple failure symptoms.

=== Ensuring requirements are satisfied ===

Software testing may involve a Requirements gap {{endash}} omission from the design for a requirement.<ref name="kolawa" />{{rp|426}} Requirement gaps can often be [[non-functional requirements]] such as [[software testability|testability]], [[scalability]], [[maintainability]], [[Computer performance|performance]], and [[Computer security|security]].

=== Code coverage ===

A fundamental limitation of software testing is that testing under ''all'' combinations of inputs and preconditions (initial state) is not feasible, even with a simple product.<ref name="Kaner2" />{{rp|17–18}}<ref>{{Cite web |date=July 1, 2005 |title=Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus |url=http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/istqbsyll.pdf |access-date=December 15, 2017 |publisher=[[International Software Testing Qualifications Board]] |at=Principle 2, Section 1.3 |archive-date=December 17, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217060536/http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/istqbsyll.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> 
Defects that manifest in unusual conditions are difficult to find in testing. Also, [[Non-functional requirements|non-functional]] dimensions of quality (how it is supposed to ''be'' versus what it is supposed to ''do'') {{endash}} [[usability]], [[scalability]], [[Computer performance|performance]], [[Backward compatibility|compatibility]], and [[reliability (engineering)|reliability]] {{endash}} can be subjective; something that constitutes sufficient value to one person may not to another.

Although testing for every possible input is not feasible, testing can use [[combinatorics]] to maximize coverage while minimizing tests.<ref>{{Cite conference |last1=Ramler |first1=Rudolf |last2=Kopetzky |first2=Theodorich |last3=Platz |first3=Wolfgang |date=April 17, 2012 |title=Combinatorial Test Design in the TOSCA Testsuite: Lessons Learned and Practical Implications |conference=IEEE Fifth International Conference on Software Testing and Validation (ICST) |location=Montreal, QC, Canada |doi=10.1109/ICST.2012.142}}</ref>

== Categories ==
{{Anchor|Testing types}}
{{Main|Software testing tactics}}

Testing can be categorized many ways.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Kaner |first1=Cem |url=https://archive.org/details/lessonslearnedso00kane |title=Lessons Learned in Software Testing: A Context-Driven Approach |last2=Bach |first2=James |last3=Pettichord |first3=Bret |publisher=Wiley |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-471-08112-8 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/lessonslearnedso00kane/page/n55 31]–43 |url-access=limited}}</ref>

=== Automated testing ===
{{Excerpt|Test automation|paragraphs=1|only=paragraph}}

=== Levels ===

Software testing can be categorized into levels based on how much of the [[software system]] is the focus of a test.<ref name="Computer.org">{{Cite book |title=Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge |publisher=IEEE Computer Society |year=2014 |isbn=978-0-7695-5166-1 |editor-last=Bourque |editor-first=Pierre |series=3.0 |chapter=Chapter 5 |access-date=January 2, 2018 |editor-last2=Fairley |editor-first2=Richard E. |chapter-url=https://www.computer.org/web/swebok/v3}}</ref><ref name="BourqueSWEBOK14-4">{{Cite book |title=SWEBOK v3.0: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge |publisher=IEEE |year=2014 |isbn=978-0-7695-5166-1 |editor-last=Bourque, P. |pages=4–1–4–17 |chapter=Chapter 4: Software Testing |access-date=July 13, 2018 |editor-last2=Fairley, R.D. |chapter-url=http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tjmenzie/cs510/pdf/SWEBOKv3.pdf |archive-date=June 19, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180619003324/http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tjmenzie/cs510/pdf/SWEBOKv3.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="DooleySoftware11">{{Cite book |last=Dooley, J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iOqP9_6w-18C&pg=PA193 |title=Software Development and Professional Practice |publisher=APress |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-4302-3801-0 |pages=193–4}}</ref><ref name="WiegersCreating13">{{Cite book |last=Wiegers, K. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uVsUAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA212 |title=Creating a Software Engineering Culture |publisher=Addison-Wesley |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-13-348929-3 |pages=211–2}}</ref>

==== Unit testing ====
{{Excerpt|Unit testing|paragraphs=1|only=paragraph}}

==== Integration testing ====
{{Excerpt|Integration testing|paragraphs=1|only=paragraph}}

==== System testing ====
{{Excerpt|System testing|paragraphs=1|only=paragraph}}

=== Static, dynamic, and passive testing ===

There are many approaches to software testing. [[Code review|Reviews]], [[software walkthrough|walkthrough]]s, or [[Software inspection|inspections]] are referred to as static testing, whereas executing programmed code with a given set of [[Test case (software)|test case]]s is referred to as [[dynamic testing]].<ref name="GrahamFoundations08">{{Cite book |last1=Graham, D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ss62LSqCa1MC&pg=PA57 |title=Foundations of Software Testing |last2=Van Veenendaal, E. |last3=Evans, I. |publisher=Cengage Learning |year=2008 |isbn=978-1-84480-989-9 |pages=57–58}}</ref><ref name="OberkampfVerif10">{{Cite book |last1=Oberkampf, W.L. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7d26zLEJ1FUC&pg=PA155 |title=Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing |last2=Roy, C.J. |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2010 |isbn=978-1-139-49176-1 |pages=154–5}}</ref>

Static testing is often implicit, like proofreading, plus when programming tools/text editors check source code structure or compilers (pre-compilers) check syntax and data flow as [[static program analysis]]. Dynamic testing takes place when the program itself is run. Dynamic testing may begin before the program is 100% complete in order to test particular sections of code and are applied to discrete [[Function (computer science)|functions]] or modules.<ref name="GrahamFoundations08" /><ref name="OberkampfVerif10" /> Typical techniques for these are either using [[Method stub|stubs]]/drivers or execution from a [[debugger]] environment.<ref name="OberkampfVerif10" />

Static testing involves [[software verification|verification]], whereas dynamic testing also involves [[software validation|validation]].<ref name="OberkampfVerif10" />

Passive testing means verifying the system's behavior without any interaction with the software product. Contrary to active testing, testers do not provide any test data but look at system logs and traces. They mine for patterns and specific behavior in order to make some kind of decisions.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Lee |first1=D. |last2=Netravali |first2=A.N. |last3=Sabnani |first3=K.K. |last4=Sugla |first4=B. |last5=John |first5=A. |title=Proceedings 1997 International Conference on Network Protocols |chapter=Passive testing and applications to network management |year=1997 |publisher=IEEE Comput. Soc |pages=113–122 |doi=10.1109/icnp.1997.643699 |isbn=978-0-8186-8061-8 |s2cid=42596126}}</ref> This is related to offline [[runtime verification]] and [[log analysis]].

=== Exploratory ===
{{Excerpt|Exploratory testing|paragraph=1}}

=== Preset testing vs adaptive testing ===
The type of testing strategy to be performed depends on whether the tests to be applied to the IUT should be decided before the testing plan starts to be executed (preset testing<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lee |first1=D. | last2=Yannakakis |first2=M. |date=1996 |title=Principles and methods of testing finite state machines-a survey |url=https://doi.org/10.1109/5.533956 |journal=Proceedings of the IEEE |volume=84 |issue=8 |pages=1090–1123|doi=10.1109/5.533956 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>) or whether each input to be applied to the IUT can be dynamically dependent on the outputs obtained during the application of the previous tests (adaptive testing<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Petrenko|first1=A. |last2=Yevtushenko |first2=N. |title=In Testing Software and Systems: 23rd IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference, ICTSS 2011, Paris, France, November 7-10 |chapter= Adaptive testing of deterministic implementations specified by nondeterministic FSMs |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science | chapter-url=https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01583921 |year=2011 |volume=7019 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=162–178 |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-24580-0_12 |isbn=978-3-642-24579-4 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Petrenko|first1=A. |last2=Yevtushenko |first2=N. |title=In 2014 IEEE 15th International Symposium on High-Assurance Systems Engineering |chapter= Adaptive testing of nondeterministic systems with FSM | url=https://doi.org/10.1109/HASE.2014.39 |year=2014 |publisher=IEEE |pages=224–228 |doi=10.1109/HASE.2014.39 |isbn=978-1-4799-3466-9 }}</ref>).

=== Black/white box ===

Software testing can often be divided into white-box and black-box. These two approaches are used to describe the point of view that the tester takes when designing test cases. A hybrid approach called grey-box that includes aspects of both boxes may also be applied to software testing methodology.<ref name="LimayeSoftware09">{{Cite book |last=Limaye, M.G. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zUm8My7SiakC&pg=PA108 |title=Software Testing |publisher=Tata McGraw-Hill Education |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-07-013990-9 |pages=108–11}}</ref><ref name="SalehSoftware09">{{Cite book |last=Saleh, K.A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=N69KPjBEWygC&pg=PA224 |title=Software Engineering |publisher=J. Ross Publishing |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-932159-94-3 |pages=224–41}}</ref>

==== White-box testing ====
{{Main|White-box testing}}

[[File:White Box Testing Approach.png|alt=White Box Testing Diagram|thumb|White box testing diagram]]

White-box testing (also known as clear box testing, glass box testing, transparent box testing, and structural testing) verifies the internal structures or workings of a program, as opposed to the functionality exposed to the end-user. In white-box testing, an internal perspective of the system (the source code), as well as programming skills are used to design test cases. The tester chooses inputs to exercise paths through the code and determines the appropriate outputs.<ref name="LimayeSoftware09" /><ref name="SalehSoftware09" /> This is analogous to testing nodes in a circuit, e.g., [[in-circuit test]]ing (ICT).

While white-box testing can be applied at the [[unit testing|unit]], [[integration testing|integration]], and [[system testing|system]] levels of the software testing process, it is usually done at the unit level.<ref name="AmmannIntro16" /> It can test paths within a unit, paths between units during integration, and between subsystems during a system–level test. Though this method of test design can uncover many errors or problems, it might not detect unimplemented parts of the specification or missing requirements.

Techniques used in white-box testing include:<ref name="SalehSoftware09" /><ref name="EverettSoftware07">{{Cite book |last1=Everatt, G.D. |title=Software Testing: Testing Across the Entire Software Development Life Cycle |last2=McLeod Jr., R. |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-470-14634-7 |pages=99–121 |chapter=Chapter 7: Functional Testing}}</ref>

* [[API testing]] – testing of the application using public and private [[application programming interfaces|APIs]] (application programming interfaces)
* [[Code coverage]] – creating tests to satisfy some criteria of code coverage (for example, the test designer can create tests to cause all statements in the program to be executed at least once)
* [[Fault injection]] methods – intentionally introducing faults to gauge the efficacy of testing strategies
* [[Mutation testing]] methods
* [[Static testing]] methods

Code coverage tools can evaluate the completeness of a test suite that was created with any method, including black-box testing. This allows the software team to examine parts of a system that are rarely tested and ensures that the most important [[function points]] have been tested.<ref name="CornettCode96">{{Cite web |last=Cornett |first=Steve |date=c. 1996 |title=Code Coverage Analysis |url=https://www.bullseye.com/coverage.html#intro |access-date=November 21, 2017 |publisher=Bullseye Testing Technology |at=Introduction}}</ref> Code coverage as a [[software metric]] can be reported as a percentage for:<ref name="LimayeSoftware09" /><ref name="CornettCode96" /><ref name="BlackPragmatic11">{{Cite book |last=Black, R. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=n-bTHNW97kYC&pg=PA44 |title=Pragmatic Software Testing: Becoming an Effective and Efficient Test Professional |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-118-07938-6 |pages=44–6}}</ref>

:* ''Function coverage'', which reports on functions executed
:* ''Statement coverage'', which reports on the number of lines executed to complete the test
:* ''Decision coverage'', which reports on whether both the True and the False branch of a given test has been executed

100% statement coverage ensures that all code paths or branches (in terms of [[control flow]]) are executed at least once. This is helpful in ensuring correct functionality, but not sufficient since the same code may process different inputs correctly or incorrectly.<ref>As a simple example, the [[C (programming language)|C]] function <syntaxhighlight lang="C" inline>int f(int x){return x*x-6*x+8;}</syntaxhighlight> consists of only one statement. All tests against a specification <syntaxhighlight lang="C" inline>f(x)>=0</syntaxhighlight> will succeed, except if <syntaxhighlight lang="C" inline>x=3</syntaxhighlight> happens to be chosen.</ref>

==== Black-box testing ====
{{Main|Black-box testing}}
[[File:Black box diagram.svg|thumb|Black box diagram]]

Black-box testing (also known as functional testing) describes designing test cases without knowledge of the implementation, without reading the source code. The testers are only aware of what the software is supposed to do, not how it does it.<ref name="Patton">{{Cite book |last=Patton |first=Ron |url=https://archive.org/details/softwaretesting0000patt |title=Software Testing |publisher=Sams Publishing |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-672-32798-8 |edition=2nd |location=Indianapolis}}</ref> Black-box testing methods include: [[equivalence partitioning]], [[boundary value analysis]], [[all-pairs testing]], [[state transition table]]s, [[decision table]] testing, [[fuzz testing]], [[model-based testing]], [[use case]] testing, [[exploratory testing]], and specification-based testing.<ref name="LimayeSoftware09" /><ref name="SalehSoftware09" /><ref name="BlackPragmatic11" />

Specification-based testing aims to test the functionality of software according to the applicable requirements.<ref>{{Cite thesis |last=Laycock |first=Gilbert T. |title=The Theory and Practice of Specification Based Software Testing |degree=dissertation |publisher=Department of Computer Science, [[University of Sheffield]] |url=https://www.cs.le.ac.uk/people/glaycock/thesis.pdf |year=1993 |access-date=January 2, 2018}}</ref> This level of testing usually requires thorough [[Test case (software)|test case]]s to be provided to the tester, who then can simply verify that for a given input, the output value (or behavior), either "is" or "is not" the same as the expected value specified in the test case. Test cases are built around specifications and requirements, i.e., what the application is supposed to do. It uses external descriptions of the software, including specifications, requirements, and designs, to derive test cases. These tests can be [[functional testing|functional]] or [[non-functional testing|non-functional]], though usually functional. Specification-based testing may be necessary to assure correct functionality, but it is insufficient to guard against complex or high-risk situations.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bach |first=James |author-link=James Bach |date=June 1999 |title=Risk and Requirements-Based Testing |url=https://www.satisfice.com/articles/requirements_based_testing.pdf |journal=Computer |volume=32 |issue=6 |pages=113–114 |access-date=August 19, 2008}}</ref>

Black box testing can be used to any level of testing although usually not at the unit level.<ref name="AmmannIntro16" />

'''Component interface testing'''

Component interface testing is a variation of [[black-box testing]], with the focus on the data values beyond just the related actions of a subsystem component.<ref name="MathurFound11-63">{{Cite book |last=Mathur, A.P. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hyaQobu44xUC&pg=PA18 |title=Foundations of Software Testing |publisher=Pearson Education India |year=2011 |isbn=978-81-317-5908-0 |page=63}}</ref> The practice of component interface testing can be used to check the handling of data passed between various units, or subsystem components, beyond full integration testing between those units.<ref name="Clapp">{{Cite book |last=Clapp |first=Judith A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wAq0rnyiGMEC&pg=PA313 |title=Software Quality Control, Error Analysis, and Testing |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-8155-1363-6 |page=313 |publisher=William Andrew |access-date=January 5, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Mathur">{{Cite book |last=Mathur |first=Aditya P. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yU-rTcurys8C&pg=PR38 |title=Foundations of Software Testing |publisher=Pearson Education India |year=2007 |isbn=978-81-317-1660-1 |page=18}}</ref> The data being passed can be considered as "message packets" and the range or data types can be checked for data generated from one unit and tested for validity before being passed into another unit. One option for interface testing is to keep a separate log file of data items being passed, often with a timestamp logged to allow analysis of thousands of cases of data passed between units for days or weeks. Tests can include checking the handling of some extreme data values while other interface variables are passed as normal values.<ref name=Clapp/> Unusual data values in an interface can help explain unexpected performance in the next unit.

===== Visual testing =====

The aim of visual testing is to provide developers with the ability to examine what was happening at the point of software failure by presenting the data in such a way that the developer can easily find the information he or she requires, and the information is expressed clearly.<ref>{{Cite thesis |last=Lönnberg |first=Jan |title=Visual testing of software |date=October 7, 2003 |degree=MSc |publisher=Helsinki University of Technology |url=https://www.cs.hut.fi/~jlonnber/VisualTesting.pdf |access-date=January 13, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Chima |first=Raspal |title=Visual testing |url=http://www.testmagazine.co.uk/2011/04/visual-testing |magazine=TEST Magazine |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120724162657/http://www.testmagazine.co.uk/2011/04/visual-testing/ |archive-date=July 24, 2012 |access-date=January 13, 2012}}</ref>

At the core of visual testing is the idea that showing someone a problem (or a test failure), rather than just describing it, greatly increases clarity and understanding. Visual testing, therefore, requires the recording of the entire test process – capturing everything that occurs on the test system in video format. Output videos are supplemented by real-time tester input via picture-in-a-picture webcam and audio commentary from microphones.

Visual testing provides a number of advantages. The quality of communication is increased drastically because testers can show the problem (and the events leading up to it) to the developer as opposed to just describing it, and the need to replicate test failures will cease to exist in many cases. The developer will have all the evidence he or she requires of a test failure and can instead focus on the cause of the fault and how it should be fixed.

[[Ad hoc testing]] and [[exploratory testing]] are important methodologies for checking software integrity because they require less preparation time to implement, while the important bugs can be found quickly.<ref name="LewisSoftware16">{{Cite book |last=Lewis, W.E. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fgaBDd0TfT8C&pg=PA68 |title=Software Testing and Continuous Quality Improvement |publisher=CRC Press |year=2016 |isbn=978-1-4398-3436-7 |edition=3rd |pages=68–73}}</ref> In ad hoc testing, where testing takes place in an improvised impromptu way, the ability of the tester(s) to base testing off documented methods and then improvise variations of those tests can result in a more rigorous examination of defect fixes.<ref name="LewisSoftware16" /> However, unless strict documentation of the procedures is maintained, one of the limits of ad hoc testing is lack of repeatability.<ref name="LewisSoftware16" />

{{further|Graphical user interface testing}}

==== Grey-box testing ====
{{main|Gray box testing}}

Grey-box testing (American spelling: gray-box testing) involves using knowledge of internal data structures and algorithms for purposes of designing tests while executing those tests at the user, or black-box level. The tester will often have access to both "the source code and the executable binary."<ref name="RansomeCore13">{{Cite book |last1=Ransome, J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MX5cAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA140 |title=Core Software Security: Security at the Source |last2=Misra, A. |publisher=CRC Press |year=2013 |isbn=978-1-4665-6095-6 |pages=140–3}}</ref> Grey-box testing may also include [[Reverse coding|reverse engineering]] (using dynamic code analysis) to determine, for instance, boundary values or error messages.<ref name="RansomeCore13" /> Manipulating input data and formatting output do not qualify as grey-box, as the input and output are clearly outside of the "black box" that we are calling the system under test. This distinction is particularly important when conducting [[integration testing]] between two modules of code written by two different developers, where only the interfaces are exposed for the test.

By knowing the underlying concepts of how the software works, the tester makes better-informed testing choices while testing the software from outside. Typically, a grey-box tester will be permitted to set up an isolated testing environment with activities, such as seeding a [[database]]. The tester can observe the state of the product being tested after performing certain actions such as executing [[SQL]] statements against the database and then executing queries to ensure that the expected changes have been reflected. Grey-box testing implements intelligent test scenarios based on limited information. This will particularly apply to data type handling, [[exception handling]], and so on.<ref name="ref4">{{Cite web |title=SOA Testing Tools for Black, White and Gray Box |url=http://www.crosschecknet.com/soa_testing_black_white_gray_box.php |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181001010542/http://www.crosschecknet.com:80/soa_testing_black_white_gray_box.php |archive-date=October 1, 2018 |access-date=December 10, 2012 |publisher=Crosscheck Networks |type=white paper}}</ref>

With the concept of grey-box testing, this "arbitrary distinction" between black- and white-box testing has faded somewhat.<ref name="AmmannIntro16">{{Cite book |last1=Ammann, P. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=58LeDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA26 |title=Introduction to Software Testing |last2=Offutt, J. |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2016 |isbn=978-1-316-77312-3 |page=26}}</ref>

=== Installation testing ===
{{Excerpt|Installation testing|paragraph=1}}

=== Compatibility testing ===
{{main|Compatibility testing}}

A common cause of software failure (real or perceived) is a lack of its [[Computer compatibility|compatibility]] with other [[application software]], [[operating system]]s (or operating system [[Software versioning|version]]s, old or new), or target environments that differ greatly from the original (such as a [[computer terminal|terminal]] or [[GUI]] application intended to be run on the [[Desktop metaphor|desktop]] now being required to become a [[Web application]], which must render in a [[Web browser]]). For example, in the case of a lack of [[backward compatibility]], this can occur because the programmers develop and test software only on the latest version of the target environment, which not all users may be running. This results in the unintended consequence that the latest work may not function on earlier versions of the target environment, or on older hardware that earlier versions of the target environment were capable of using. Sometimes such issues can be fixed by proactively [[Abstraction (computer science)|abstracting]] operating system functionality into a separate program [[Modular programming|module]] or [[Library (computing)|library]].

=== Smoke and sanity testing ===
{{main|Smoke testing (software)}}

[[Sanity testing]] determines whether it is reasonable to proceed with further testing.

[[Smoke testing (software)|Smoke testing]] consists of minimal attempts to operate the software, designed to determine whether there are any basic problems that will prevent it from working at all. Such tests can be used as [[build verification test]].

=== Regression testing ===
{{Main|Regression testing}}

Regression testing focuses on finding defects after a major code change has occurred. Specifically, it seeks to uncover [[software regression]]s, as degraded or lost features, including old bugs that have come back. Such regressions occur whenever software functionality that was previously working correctly, stops working as intended. Typically, regressions occur as an [[unintended consequence]] of program changes, when the newly developed part of the software collides with the previously existing code. Regression testing is typically the largest test effort in commercial software development,<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Ammann |first1=Paul |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=leokXF8pLY0C&pg=PA215 |title=Introduction to Software Testing |last2=Offutt |first2=Jeff |date=January 28, 2008 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-0-521-88038-1 |page=215 |access-date=November 29, 2017}}</ref> due to checking numerous details in prior software features, and even new software can be developed while using some old test cases to test parts of the new design to ensure prior functionality is still supported.

Common methods of regression testing include re-running previous sets of test cases and checking whether previously fixed faults have re-emerged. The depth of testing depends on the phase in the release process and the [[risk management|risk]] of the added features. They can either be complete, for changes added late in the release or deemed to be risky, or be very shallow, consisting of positive tests on each feature, if the changes are early in the release or deemed to be of low risk.

=== Acceptance testing ===

{{Main|Acceptance testing}}

Acceptance testing is system-level testing to ensure the software meets customer expectations.<ref name="LewisSoftware16-2" /><ref name="BorbaTesting10">{{Cite book |last1=Machado, P. |title=Testing Techniques in Software Engineering |last2=Vincenzi, A. |last3=Maldonado, J.C. |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |year=2010 |isbn=978-3-642-14334-2 |editor-last=Borba, P. |pages=13–14 |chapter=Chapter 1: Software Testing: An Overview |editor-last2=Cavalcanti, A. |editor-last3=Sampaio, A. |editor-last4=Woodcook, J. |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZOHrm02GFCEC&pg=PA13}}</ref><ref name="ClappSoftware95">{{Cite book |last1=Clapp, J.A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wAq0rnyiGMEC&pg=PA254 |title=Software Quality Control, Error Analysis, and Testing |last2=Stanten, S.F. |last3=Peng, W.W. |publisher=Nova Data Corporation |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-8155-1363-6 |page=254 |display-authors=et al}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=ISTQB CTFL Syllabus 2018 |url=https://istqb-main-web-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/ISTQB-CTFL_Syllabus_2018_v3.1.1.pdf |website=ISTQB - International Software Testing Qualifications Board |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220324091506/https://istqb-main-web-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/ISTQB-CTFL_Syllabus_2018_v3.1.1.pdf |archive-date=2022-03-24 |access-date=2022-04-11}}</ref>

Acceptance testing may be performed as part of the hand-off process between any two phases of development.{{Citation needed|date= January 2008}}

Tests are frequently grouped into these levels by where they are performed in the software development process, or by the level of specificity of the test.<ref name=":0" />

* User acceptance testing (UAT)
* Operational acceptance testing (OAT)
* Contractual and regulatory acceptance testing
* Alpha and beta testing

Sometimes, UAT is performed by the customer, in their environment and on their own hardware.

OAT is used to conduct operational readiness (pre-release) of a product, service or system as part of a [[quality management system]]. OAT is a common type of non-functional software testing, used mainly in [[software development]] and [[software maintenance]] projects. This type of testing focuses on the operational readiness of the system to be supported, or to become part of the production environment. Hence, it is also known as operational readiness testing (ORT) or [[operations readiness and assurance]] (OR&A) testing. [[Functional testing]] within OAT is limited to those tests that are required to verify the ''non-functional'' aspects of the system.

In addition, the software testing should ensure that the portability of the system, as well as working as expected, does not also damage or partially corrupt its operating environment or cause other processes within that environment to become inoperative.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Woods |first=Anthony J. |date=June 5, 2015 |title=Operational Acceptance – an application of the ISO 29119 Software Testing standard |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/257086897/Operational-Acceptance-Test-White-Paper-2015-Capgemini |access-date=January 9, 2018 |publisher=Capgemini Australia |type=Whitepaper}}</ref>

Contractual acceptance testing is performed based on the contract's acceptance criteria defined during the agreement of the contract, while regulatory acceptance testing is performed based on the relevant regulations to the software product. Both of these two tests can be performed by users or independent testers. Regulation acceptance testing sometimes involves the regulatory agencies auditing the test results.<ref name=":0" />

=== Alpha testing ===
Alpha testing is simulated or actual operational testing by potential users/customers or an independent test team at the developers' site. Alpha testing is often employed for off-the-shelf software as a form of internal acceptance testing before the software goes to beta testing.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Standard Glossary of Terms used in Software Testing |url=https://www.astqb.org/documents/Glossary-of-Software-Testing-Terms-v3.pdf |access-date=January 9, 2018 |publisher=International Software Testing Qualifications Board |version=Version 3.1}}</ref>

=== Beta testing ===
{{See also|Software release life cycle#Beta}}

Beta testing comes after alpha testing and can be considered a form of external [[user acceptance testing]]. Versions of the software, known as [[beta version]]s, are released to a limited audience outside of the programming team known as beta testers. The software is released to groups of people so that further testing can ensure the product has few faults or [[computer bug|bug]]s. Beta versions can be made available to the open public to increase the [[Feedback#In organizations|feedback]] field to a maximal number of future users and to deliver value earlier, for an extended or even indefinite period of time ([[perpetual beta]]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=O'Reilly |first=Tim |date=September 30, 2005 |title=What is Web 2.0 |url=https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=4 |access-date=January 11, 2018 |publisher=O'Reilly Media |at=Section 4. End of the Software Release Cycle}}</ref>

=== Functional vs non-functional testing ===

[[Functional testing]] refers to activities that verify a specific action or function of the code. These are usually found in the code requirements documentation, although some development methodologies work from use cases or user stories. Functional tests tend to answer the question of "can the user do this" or "does this particular feature work."

[[Non-functional testing]] refers to aspects of the software that may not be related to a specific function or user action, such as [[scalability]] or other [[performance]], behavior under certain [[constraint (mathematics)|constraint]]s, or [[computer security|security]]. Testing will determine the breaking point, the point at which extremes of scalability or performance leads to unstable execution. Non-functional requirements tend to be those that reflect the quality of the product, particularly in the context of the suitability perspective of its users.

=== Continuous testing ===
{{Main|Continuous testing}}

Continuous testing is the process of executing [[test automation|automated tests]] as part of the software delivery pipeline to obtain immediate feedback on the business risks associated with a software release candidate.<ref name="essential">{{Cite web |last=Auerbach |first=Adam |date=August 3, 2015 |title=Part of the Pipeline: Why Continuous Testing Is Essential |url=https://www.techwell.com/techwell-insights/2015/08/part-pipeline-why-continuous-testing-essential |access-date=January 12, 2018 |website=TechWell Insights |publisher=TechWell Corp.}}</ref><ref name="stickym">{{Cite web |last=Philipp-Edmonds |first=Cameron |date=December 5, 2014 |title=The Relationship between Risk and Continuous Testing: An Interview with Wayne Ariola |url=http://www.stickyminds.com/interview/relationship-between-risk-and-continuous-testing-interview-wayne-ariola |access-date=January 16, 2018 |website=Stickyminds}}</ref> Continuous testing includes the validation of both [[functional requirements]] and [[non-functional requirements]]; the scope of testing extends from validating bottom-up requirements or user stories to assessing the system requirements associated with overarching business goals.<ref name="pnsqc">{{Cite conference |last1=Ariola |first1=Wayne |last2=Dunlop |first2=Cynthia |date=October 2015 |title=DevOps: Are You Pushing Bugs to Clients Faster? |url=http://uploads.pnsqc.org/2015/papers/t-007_Ariola_paper.pdf |conference=Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference |access-date=January 16, 2018}}</ref><ref name="shift">{{Cite web |last=Auerbach |first=Adam |date=October 2, 2014 |title=Shift Left and Put Quality First |url=https://www.techwell.com/techwell-insights/2014/10/shift-left-and-put-quality-first |access-date=January 16, 2018 |website=TechWell Insights |publisher=TechWell Corp.}}</ref>

=== Destructive testing ===
{{Main|Destructive testing}}

Destructive testing attempts to cause the software or a sub-system to fail. It verifies that the software functions properly even when it receives invalid or unexpected inputs, thereby establishing the [[Robustness (computer science)|robustness]] of input validation and error-management routines.{{citation needed|date= July 2012}} [[Fault injection|Software fault injection]], in the form of [[Fuzz testing|fuzzing]], is an example of failure testing. Various commercial non-functional testing tools are linked from the [[Fault injection|software fault injection]] page; there are also numerous open-source and free software tools available that perform destructive testing.

{{further|Exception handling|Recovery testing}}

=== Software performance testing ===
{{Main|Software performance testing}}

Performance testing is generally executed to determine how a system or sub-system performs in terms of responsiveness and stability under a particular workload. It can also serve to investigate, measure, validate or verify other quality attributes of the system, such as scalability, reliability and resource usage.

''[[Load testing#Software load testing|Load testing]]'' is primarily concerned with testing that the system can continue to operate under a specific load, whether that be large quantities of data or a large number of [[Load testing|users]]. This is generally referred to as software [[scalability]]. The related load testing activity of when performed as a non-functional activity is often referred to as ''endurance testing''. ''[[Volume testing]]'' is a way to test software functions even when certain components (for example a file or database) increase radically in size. ''[[Stress testing]]'' is a way to test reliability under unexpected or rare workloads. ''Stability testing'' (often referred to as load or endurance testing) checks to see if the software can continuously function well in or above an acceptable period.

There is little agreement on what the specific goals of performance testing are. The terms load testing, performance testing, [[scalability testing]], and volume testing, are often used interchangeably.

[[Real-time computing|Real-time software]] systems have strict timing constraints. To test if timing constraints are met, [[real-time testing]] is used.

=== Usability testing ===

[[Usability testing]] is to check if the user interface is easy to use and understand. It is concerned mainly with the use of the application. This is not a kind of testing that can be automated; actual human users are needed, being monitored by skilled [[User experience design#Interaction designers|UI designers]]. Usability testing can use structured models to check how well an interface works. The Stanton, Theofanos, and Joshi (2015) model looks at user experience, and the Al-Sharafat and Qadoumi (2016) model is for expert evaluation, helping to assess usability in digital applications.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Taqi |first1=Farwa |last2=Batool |first2=Syeda Hina |last3=Arshad |first3=Alia |date=2024-05-23 |title=Development and Validation of Cloud Applications Usability Development Scale |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10447318.2024.2351715 |journal=International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction |language=en |pages=1–16 |doi=10.1080/10447318.2024.2351715 |issn=1044-7318|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

=== Accessibility testing ===

[[Accessibility]] testing is done to ensure that the software is accessible to persons with disabilities. Some of the common web accessibility tests are

* Ensuring that the color contrast between the font and the background color is appropriate
* Font Size
* Alternate Texts for multimedia content
* Ability to use the system using the computer keyboard in addition to the mouse.

==== Common standards for compliance ====
* [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990]]
* [[Section 508 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973]]
* [[Web Accessibility Initiative]] (WAI) of the [[World Wide Web Consortium]] (W3C)

=== Security testing ===

[[Security testing]] is essential for software that processes confidential data to prevent [[Backdoor (computing)|system intrusion]] by [[Hacker (computer security)|hackers]].

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines this as a "type of testing conducted to evaluate the degree to which a test item, and associated data and information, are protected so that unauthorised persons or systems cannot use, read or modify them, and authorized persons or systems are not denied access to them."<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.iso.org/standard/45142.html |title=ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-1:2013 – Software and Systems Engineering – Software Testing – Part 1 – Concepts and Definitions |publisher=International Organization for Standardization |chapter=Section 4.38 |access-date=January 17, 2018}}</ref>

=== Internationalization and localization ===

Testing for [[internationalization and localization]] validates that the software can be used with different languages and geographic regions. The process of [[pseudolocalization]] is used to test the ability of an application to be translated to another language, and make it easier to identify when the localization process may introduce new bugs into the product.

Globalization testing verifies that the software is adapted for a new culture, such as different currencies or time zones.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Globalization Step-by-Step: The World-Ready Approach to Testing. Microsoft Developer Network |url=https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/goglobal/bb688148 |access-date=January 13, 2012 |publisher=Microsoft Developer Network |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120623050851/https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/goglobal/bb688148 |archive-date=June 23, 2012}}</ref>

Actual translation to human languages must be tested, too. Possible localization and globalization failures include:

* Some messages may be untranslated.
* Software is often localized by translating a list of [[String (computer science)|strings]] out of context, and the translator may choose the wrong translation for an ambiguous source string.
* Technical terminology may become inconsistent, if the project is translated by several people without proper coordination or if the translator is imprudent.
* Literal word-for-word translations may sound inappropriate, artificial or too technical in the target language.
* Untranslated messages in the original language may be [[Hard coding|hard coded]] in the source code, and thus untranslatable.
* Some messages may be created automatically at [[Run time (program lifecycle phase)|run time]] and the resulting string may be ungrammatical, functionally incorrect, misleading or confusing.
* Software may use a [[keyboard shortcut]] that has no function on the source language's [[keyboard layout]], but is used for typing characters in the layout of the target language.
* Software may lack support for the [[character encoding]] of the target language.
* Fonts and font sizes that are appropriate in the source language may be inappropriate in the target language; for example, [[CJK characters]] may become unreadable if the font is too small.
* A string in the target language may be longer than the software can handle. This may make the string partly invisible to the user or cause the software to crash or malfunction.
* Software may lack proper support for reading or writing [[bi-directional text]].
* Software may display images with text that was not localized.
* Localized operating systems may have differently named system [[configuration file]]s and [[environment variable]]s and different [[Date and time notation by country|formats for date]] and [[currency]].

=== Development testing ===
{{Main|Development testing}}

Development testing is a software development process that involves the synchronized application of a broad spectrum of defect prevention and detection strategies in order to reduce software development risks, time, and costs. It is performed by the software developer or engineer during the construction phase of the software development lifecycle. Development testing aims to eliminate construction errors before code is promoted to other testing; this strategy is intended to increase the quality of the resulting software as well as the efficiency of the overall development process.

Depending on the organization's expectations for software development, development testing might include [[static code analysis]], data flow analysis, metrics analysis, peer code reviews, unit testing, code coverage analysis, [[Requirements traceability|traceability]], and other software testing practices.

=== A/B testing ===
{{Main|A/B testing}}

A/B testing is a method of running a controlled experiment to determine if a proposed change is more effective than the current approach. Customers are routed to either a current version (control) of a feature, or to a modified version (treatment) and data is collected to determine which version is better at achieving the desired outcome.

=== Concurrent testing ===
{{Main|Concurrent testing}}

Concurrent or concurrency testing assesses the behaviour and performance of software and systems that use [[concurrent computing]], generally under normal usage conditions. Typical problems this type of testing will expose are deadlocks, race conditions and problems with shared memory/resource handling.

=== Conformance testing or type testing ===
{{Main|Conformance testing}}

In software testing, conformance testing verifies that a product performs according to its specified standards. Compilers, for instance, are extensively tested to determine whether they meet the recognized standard for that language.

=== Output comparison testing ===

Creating a display expected output, whether as [[File comparison|data comparison]] of text or screenshots of the UI,<ref name="Kaner2" />{{Rp|195}} is sometimes called snapshot testing or Golden Master Testing unlike many other forms of testing, this cannot detect failures automatically and instead requires that a human evaluate the output for inconsistencies.

=== Property testing ===
{{distinguish|property testing{{!}}property testing algorithms}}

Property testing is a testing technique where, instead of asserting that specific inputs produce specific expected outputs, the practitioner randomly generates many inputs, runs the program on all of them, and asserts the truth of some "property" that should be true for every pair of input and output. For example, every output from a serialization function should be accepted by the corresponding deserialization function, and every output from a sort function should be a monotonically increasing list containing exactly the same elements as its input.

Property testing libraries allow the user to control the strategy by which random inputs are constructed, to ensure coverage of degenerate cases, or inputs featuring specific patterns that are needed to fully exercise aspects of the implementation under test.

Property testing is also sometimes known as "generative testing" or "QuickCheck testing" since it was introduced and popularized by the Haskell library [[QuickCheck]].<ref>{{Cite book |chapter-url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/351240.351266 |series=Icfp '00 |pages=268–279 |doi=10.1145/351240.351266 |isbn=978-1-58113-202-1 |s2cid=5668071 |chapter=QuickCheck |title=Proceedings of the fifth ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming |date=2000 |last1=Claessen |first1=Koen |last2=Hughes |first2=John }}</ref>

=== Metamorphic testing===
{{Main|Metamorphic testing}}

Metamorphic testing (MT) is a property-based software testing technique, which can be an effective approach for addressing the test oracle problem and test case generation problem. The test oracle problem is the difficulty of determining the expected outcomes of selected test cases or to determine whether the actual outputs agree with the expected outcomes.

=== VCR testing ===

VCR testing, also known as "playback testing" or "record/replay" testing, is a testing technique for increasing the reliability and speed of regression tests that involve a component that is slow or unreliable to communicate with, often a third-party API outside of the tester's control. It involves making a recording ("cassette") of the system's interactions with the external component, and then replaying the recorded interactions as a substitute for communicating with the external system on subsequent runs of the test.

The technique was popularized in web development by the Ruby library [https://github.com/vcr/vcr vcr].

=== Contract Testing ===
[[Design by contract|Contract]] testing, not to be confused with the aforementioned legally-motivated contractual acceptance testing, is a methodology consisting of testing the intergration point between any two software services by checking if the requests and responses sent between each conform to a shared set of expectations commonly referred to as a contract. It is often used in the context of [[Distributed computing|distributed systems]], [[Service-oriented architecture|service-oriented software architectures]], and [[microservices]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=What is Contract Testing and its Significance? |url=https://browserstack.wpengine.com/guide/contract-testing/ |access-date=2025-11-15 |website=BrowserStack |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fowler |first=Martin |title=bliki: Contract Test |url=https://martinfowler.com/bliki/ContractTest.html |access-date=2025-11-15 |website=martinfowler.com}}</ref>

== Teamwork ==

=== Roles ===

In an organization, testers may be in a separate team from the rest of the [[software development]] team or they may be integrated into one team. Software testing can also be performed by non-dedicated software testers.

In the 1980s, the term ''software tester'' started to be used to denote a separate profession.

Notable software testing roles and titles include:<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gelperin |first1=David |author-link=Dave Gelperin |last2=Hetzel |first2=Bill |author-link2=William C. Hetzel |date=June 1, 1988 |title=The growth of software testing |journal=Communications of the ACM |volume=31 |issue=6 |pages=687–695 |doi=10.1145/62959.62965 |s2cid=14731341|doi-access=free }}</ref> ''test manager'', ''test lead'', ''test analyst'', ''test designer'', ''tester'', ''automation developer'', and ''test administrator''.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Gregory |first1=Janet |title=More Agile Testing |last2=Crispin |first2=Lisa |publisher=Addison-Wesley Professional |year=2014 |isbn=978-0-13-374956-4 |pages=23–39}}</ref>

=== Processes ===

Organizations that develop software, perform testing differently, but there are common patterns.<ref name="pan" />

==== Waterfall development ====

{{further|Capability Maturity Model Integration|Waterfall model}}

In [[waterfall model|waterfall development]], testing is generally performed after the code is completed, but before the product is shipped to the customer.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Software Testing Lifecycle |url=http://www.etestinghub.com/testing_lifecycles.php#2 |access-date=January 13, 2012 |website=etestinghub |at=Testing Phase in Software Testing}}</ref> This practice often results in the testing phase being used as a [[project management|project]] buffer to compensate for project delays, thereby compromising the time devoted to testing.<ref name="Myers 1979" />{{rp|145–146}}

Some contend that the waterfall process allows for testing to start when the development project starts and to be a continuous process until the project finishes.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Dustin |first=Elfriede |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K0qWBUOAf6IC&pg=PA3 |title=Effective Software Testing |publisher=Addison-Wesley Professional |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-201-79429-8 |page=3}}</ref>

==== Agile development ====

[[Agile software development]] commonly involves testing while the code is being written and organizing teams with both programmers and testers and with team members performing both programming and testing.

One agile practice, [[Test-driven development|test-driven software development]] (TDD), is a way of [[unit testing]] such that unit-level testing is performed while writing the product code.<ref name="AgileAllianceTDD">{{Cite web |date=December 5, 2015 |title=What is Test Driven Development (TDD)? |url=https://www.agilealliance.org/glossary/tdd/ |access-date=March 17, 2018 |website=Agile Alliance}}</ref> Test code is updated as new features are added and failure conditions are discovered (bugs fixed). Commonly, the unit test code is maintained with the project code, integrated in the build process, and run on each build and as part of regression testing. Goals of this [[continuous integration]] is to support development and reduce defects.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Test-Driven Development and Continuous Integration for Mobile Applications |url=https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb985498.aspx#_Continuous_Integration |access-date=March 17, 2018 |website=Microsoft Developer Network|date=January 14, 2009 }}</ref><ref name="AgileAllianceTDD" />

Even in organizations that separate teams by programming and testing functions, many often have the programmers perform [[unit testing]].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Brown |first1=Chris |url=http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=26320&seqNum=6 |title=Introduction to Rapid Software Testing |last2=Cobb |first2=Gary |last3=Culbertson |first3=Robert |date=April 12, 2002}}</ref>

==== Sample process ====

The sample below is common for waterfall development. The same activities are commonly found in other development models, but might be described differently.

* [[Requirements analysis]]: testing should begin in the requirements phase of the [[software development life cycle]]. During the design phase, testers work to determine what aspects of a design are testable and with what parameters those tests work.
* Test planning: [[test strategy]], [[test plan]], [[testbed]] creation. Since many activities will be carried out during testing, a plan is needed.
* Test development: test procedures, [[Scenario test|test scenarios]], [[Test case (software)|test case]]s, test datasets, test scripts to use in testing software.
* Test execution: testers execute the software based on the plans and test documents then report any errors found to the development team. This part could be complex when running tests with a lack of programming knowledge.
* Test reporting: once testing is completed, testers generate metrics and make final reports on their [[test effort]] and whether the software tested is ready for release.
* Test result analysis: or ''defect analysis'', is done by the development team usually along with the client, in order to decide what defects should be assigned, fixed, rejected (i.e. found software working properly) or deferred to be dealt with later.
* Defect retesting: once a defect has been dealt with by the development team, it is retested by the testing team.
* [[Regression testing]]: it is common to have a small test program built of a subset of tests, for each integration of new, modified, or fixed software, in order to ensure that the latest delivery has not ruined anything and that the software product as a whole is still working correctly.
* Test closure: once the test meets the exit criteria, the activities such as capturing the key outputs, lessons learned, results, logs, documents related to the project are archived and used as a reference for future projects.

== Quality ==
{{main|Software quality}}

=== Software verification and validation ===
{{main|Verification and validation (software)|Software quality control}}

Software testing is used in association with [[Verification and validation (software)|verification and validation]]:<ref name="tran">{{Cite web |last=Tran |first=Eushiuan |year=1999 |title=Verification/Validation/Certification |url=https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/des_s99/verification/index.html |access-date=August 13, 2008 |publisher=Carnegie Mellon University |type=coursework}}</ref>

* Verification: Have we built the software right? (i.e., does it implement the requirements).
* Validation: Have we built the right software? (i.e., do the deliverables satisfy the customer).

The terms verification and validation are commonly used interchangeably in the industry; it is also common to see these two terms defined with contradictory definitions. According to the ''[[IEEE Standards Association|IEEE Standard]] Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology'':<ref name=IEEEglossary />{{rp|80–81}}

: Verification is the process of evaluating a system or component to determine whether the products of a given development phase satisfy the conditions imposed at the start of that phase.
: Validation is the process of evaluating a system or component during or at the end of the development process to determine whether it satisfies specified requirements.

And, according to the ISO 9000 standard:

: Verification is confirmation by examination and through provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled.
: Validation is confirmation by examination and through provision of objective evidence that the requirements for a specific intended use or application have been fulfilled.

The contradiction is caused by the use of the concepts of requirements and specified requirements but with different meanings.

In the case of IEEE standards, the specified requirements, mentioned in the definition of validation, are the set of problems, needs and wants of the stakeholders that the software must solve and satisfy. Such requirements are documented in a Software Requirements Specification (SRS). And, the products mentioned in the definition of verification, are the output artifacts of every phase of the software development process. These products are, in fact, specifications such as Architectural Design Specification, Detailed Design Specification, etc. The SRS is also a specification, but it cannot be verified (at least not in the sense used here, more on this subject below).

But, for the ISO 9000, the specified requirements are the set of specifications, as just mentioned above, that must be verified. A specification, as previously explained, is the product of a software development process phase that receives another specification as input. A specification is verified successfully when it correctly implements its input specification. All the specifications can be verified except the SRS because it is the first one (it can be validated, though). Examples: The Design Specification must implement the SRS; and, the Construction phase artifacts must implement the Design Specification.

So, when these words are defined in common terms, the apparent contradiction disappears.

Both the SRS and the software must be validated. The SRS can be validated statically by consulting with the stakeholders. Nevertheless, running some partial implementation of the software or a prototype of any kind (dynamic testing) and obtaining positive feedback from them, can further increase the certainty that the SRS is correctly formulated. On the other hand, the software, as a final and running product (not its artifacts and documents, including the source code) must be validated dynamically with the stakeholders by executing the software and having them to try it.

Some might argue that, for SRS, the input is the words of stakeholders and, therefore, SRS validation is the same as SRS verification. Thinking this way is not advisable as it only causes more confusion. It is better to think of verification as a process involving a formal and technical input document.

=== Software quality assurance ===

In some organizations, software testing is part of a [[software quality assurance]] (SQA) process.<ref name="Kaner2" />{{rp|347}} In SQA, software process specialists and auditors are concerned with the software development process rather than just the artifacts such as documentation, code and systems. They examine and change the [[software engineering]] process itself to reduce the number of faults that end up in the delivered software: the so-called defect rate. What constitutes an acceptable defect rate depends on the nature of the software; a flight simulator video game would have much higher defect tolerance than software for an actual airplane. Although there are close links with SQA, testing departments often exist independently, and there may be no SQA function in some companies.

Software testing is an activity to investigate software under test in order to provide quality-related information to stakeholders. By contrast, QA ([[quality assurance]]) is the implementation of policies and procedures intended to prevent defects from reaching customers.

=== Measures ===

Quality measures include such topics as [[correctness (computer science)|correctness]], completeness, [[computer security audit|security]] and [[ISO/IEC 9126]] requirements such as capability, [[Reliability engineering|reliability]], [[algorithmic efficiency|efficiency]], [[Porting|portability]], [[maintainability]], compatibility, and [[usability]].

There are a number of frequently used [[software metric]]s, or measures, which are used to assist in determining the state of the software or the adequacy of the testing.

=== Artifacts ===

A software testing process can produce several [[Artifact (software development)|artifacts]]. The actual artifacts produced are a factor of the software development model used, stakeholder and organisational needs.

====Test plan====
{{Main|Test plan}}

A [[test plan]] is a document detailing the approach that will be taken for intended test activities. The plan may include aspects such as objectives, scope, processes and procedures, personnel requirements, and contingency plans.<ref name="LewisSoftware16-2">{{Cite book |last=Lewis, W.E. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fgaBDd0TfT8C&pg=PA92 |title=Software Testing and Continuous Quality Improvement |publisher=CRC Press |year=2016 |isbn=978-1-4398-3436-7 |edition=3rd |pages=92–6}}</ref> The test plan could come in the form of a single plan that includes all test types (like an acceptance or system test plan) and planning considerations, or it may be issued as a master test plan that provides an overview of more than one detailed test plan (a plan of a plan).<ref name="LewisSoftware16-2" /> A test plan can be, in some cases, part of a wide "[[test strategy]]" which documents overall testing approaches, which may itself be a master test plan or even a separate artifact.

====Traceability matrix====
{{Excerpt|Traceability matrix|only=paragraphs|paragraph=1}}

====Test case====
{{Main|Test case (software)}}

A [[Test case (software)|test case]] normally consists of a unique identifier, requirement references from a design specification, preconditions, events, a series of steps (also known as actions) to follow, input, output, expected result, and the actual result. Clinically defined, a test case is an input and an expected result.<ref>{{Cite book |last=IEEE |title=IEEE standard for software test documentation |title-link=IEEE 829 |publisher=IEEE |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-7381-1443-9 |location=New York}}</ref> This can be as terse as "for condition x your derived result is y", although normally test cases describe in more detail the input scenario and what results might be expected. It can occasionally be a series of steps (but often steps are contained in a separate test procedure that can be exercised against multiple test cases, as a matter of economy) but with one expected result or expected outcome. The optional fields are a test case ID, test step, or order of execution number, related requirement(s), depth, test category, author, and check boxes for whether the test is automatable and has been automated. Larger test cases may also contain prerequisite states or steps, and descriptions. A test case should also contain a place for the actual result. These steps can be stored in a word processor document, spreadsheet, database, or other common repositories. In a database system, you may also be able to see past test results, who generated the results, and what system configuration was used to generate those results. These past results would usually be stored in a separate table.

====Test script====

A [[test script]] is a procedure or programming code that replicates user actions. Initially, the term was derived from the product of work created by automated regression test tools. A test case will be a baseline to create test scripts using a tool or a program.

====Test suite====
{{Excerpt|Test suite|paragraph=1}}

====Test fixture or test data====
{{Main|Test fixture}}

In most cases, multiple sets of values or data are used to test the same functionality of a particular feature. All the test values and changeable environmental components are collected in separate files and stored as test data. It is also useful to provide this data to the client and with the product or a project. There are techniques to generate Test data.

====Test harness====
{{Main|Test harness}}

The software, tools, samples of data input and output, and configurations are all referred to collectively as a [[test harness]].

====Test run====
A test run is a collection of test cases or test suites that the user is executing and comparing the expected with the actual results. Once complete, a report or all executed tests may be generated.

=== Certifications ===
{{further|Certification#In software testing}}

Several certification programs exist to support the professional aspirations of software testers and quality assurance specialists. A few practitioners argue that the testing field is not ready for certification, as mentioned in the [[#Controversy|controversy]] section.

== Controversy ==

Some of the major [[software testing controversies]] include:

; Agile vs. traditional : Should testers learn to work under conditions of uncertainty and constant change or should they aim at [[Capability Maturity Model|process "maturity"]]? The [[agile testing]] movement has received growing popularity since the early 2000s mainly in commercial circles,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Strom |first=David |date=July 1, 2009 |title=We're All Part of the Story |url=http://stpcollaborative.com/knowledge/272-were-all-part-of-the-story |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090831182649/http://stpcollaborative.com/knowledge/272-were-all-part-of-the-story |archive-date=August 31, 2009 |publisher=Software Test & Performance Collaborative}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Griffiths |first=M. |title=Agile Development Conference (ADC'05) |publisher=ieee.org |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-7695-2487-0 |pages=318–322 |chapter=Teaching agile project management to the PMI |doi=10.1109/ADC.2005.45 |s2cid=30322339}}</ref> whereas government and military<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Willison, John S. |date=April 2004 |title=Agile Software Development for an Agile Force |url=http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2004/04/0404willison.htm |journal=CrossTalk |publisher=STSC |issue=April 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051029135922/http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2004/04/0404willison.html |archive-date=October 29, 2005}}</ref> software providers use this methodology but also the traditional test-last models (e.g., in the [[Waterfall model]]).{{Citation needed|date= February 2011}}
; Manual vs. automated testing: Some writers believe that [[test automation]] is so expensive relative to its value that it should be used sparingly.<ref>An example is Mark Fewster, Dorothy Graham: ''Software Test Automation.'' Addison Wesley, 1999, {{ISBN|978-0-201-33140-0}}.</ref> The test automation then can be considered as a way to capture and implement the requirements. As a general rule, the larger the system and the greater the complexity, the greater the ROI in test automation. Also, the investment in tools and expertise can be amortized over multiple projects with the right level of knowledge sharing within an organization.
; Is the existence of the [[ISO/IEC 29119|ISO 29119]] software testing standard justified?: Significant opposition has formed out of the ranks of the context-driven school of software testing about the ISO 29119 standard. Professional testing associations, such as the International Society for Software Testing, have attempted to have the standard withdrawn.<ref>{{Cite web |title=stop29119 |url=http://commonsensetesting.org/stop29119 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141002033046/http://commonsensetesting.org/stop29119 |archive-date=October 2, 2014 |website=commonsensetesting.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Paul Krill |date=August 22, 2014 |title=Software testers balk at ISO 29119 standards proposal |url=http://www.infoworld.com/t/application-development/software-testers-balk-iso-29119-standards-proposal-249031 |website=InfoWorld}}</ref>
; Some practitioners declare that the testing field is not ready for certification:<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kaner |first=Cem |author-link=Cem Kaner |year=2001 |title=NSF grant proposal to 'lay a foundation for significant improvements in the quality of academic and commercial courses in software testing' |url=http://www.testingeducation.org/general/nsf_grant.pdf |access-date=October 13, 2006 |archive-date=November 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091127210430/http://www.testingeducation.org/general/nsf_grant.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> No certification now offered actually requires the applicant to show their ability to test software. No certification is based on a widely accepted body of knowledge. Certification itself cannot measure an individual's productivity, their skill, or practical knowledge, and cannot guarantee their competence, or professionalism as a tester.<ref>{{Cite conference |last=Kaner |first=Cem |author-link=Cem Kaner |year=2003 |title=Measuring the Effectiveness of Software Testers |url=http://www.testingeducation.org/a/mest.pdf |conference=STAR East |access-date=January 18, 2018 |archive-date=March 26, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100326042728/http://www.testingeducation.org/a/mest.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>
; Studies used to show the relative expense of fixing defects: There are opposing views on the applicability of studies used to show the relative expense of fixing defects depending on their introduction and detection. For example:

<blockquote>
It is commonly believed that the earlier a defect is found, the cheaper it is to fix it. The following table shows the cost of fixing the defect depending on the stage it was found.<ref>{{Cite book |last=McConnell |first=Steve |url=https://archive.org/details/codecomplete0000mcco |title=Code Complete |publisher=Microsoft Press |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7356-1967-8 |edition=2nd |page=[https://archive.org/details/codecomplete0000mcco/page/29 29] |url-access=registration}}</ref> For example, if a problem in the requirements is found only post-release, then it would cost 10–100 times more to fix than if it had already been found by the requirements review. With the advent of modern [[continuous deployment]] practices and cloud-based services, the cost of re-deployment and maintenance may lessen over time.

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
!rowspan="2" colspan="2"| Cost to fix a defect
!colspan="5" | Time detected
|-
!Requirements
!Architecture
!Construction
!System test
!Post-release
|-
!rowspan="3" | Time introduced
! Requirements
| 1×
| 3×
| 5–10×
| 10×
| 10–100×
|-
!Architecture
| –
| 1×
| 10×
| 15×
| 25–100×
|-
!Construction
| –
| –
| 1×
| 10×
| 10–25×
|}

</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The data from which this table is extrapolated is scant. Laurent Bossavit says in his analysis:
<blockquote>
The "smaller projects" curve turns out to be from only two teams of first-year students, a sample size so small that extrapolating to "smaller projects in general" is totally indefensible. The GTE study does not explain its data, other than to say it came from two projects, one large and one small. The paper cited for the Bell Labs "Safeguard" project specifically disclaims having collected the fine-grained data that Boehm's data points suggest. The IBM study (Fagan's paper) contains claims that seem to contradict Boehm's graph and no numerical results that clearly correspond to his data points.

Boehm doesn't even cite a paper for the TRW data, except when writing for "Making Software" in 2010, and there he cited the original 1976 article. There exists a large study conducted at TRW at the right time for Boehm to cite it, but that paper doesn't contain the sort of data that would support Boehm's claims.<ref name="Bossavit-Leprechauns">{{Cite book |last=Bossavit |first=Laurent |title=The Leprechauns of Software Engineering: How folklore turns into fact and what to do about it |date=November 20, 2013 |publisher=leanpub |chapter=The cost of defects: an illustrated history}}</ref></blockquote>
</blockquote>

== See also ==
{{Div col|colwidth=40em}}
* {{Annotated link|Data validation}}
* {{annotated link|Cross-browser testing}}
* [[Database testing]] – testing of databases
* {{annotated link|Domain testing}}
* {{Annotated link|Dynamic program analysis}}
* {{Annotated link|Formal verification}}
* {{Annotated link|Graphical user interface testing}}
* {{Annotated link|Independent test organization}}
* {{Annotated link|Manual testing}}
* {{Annotated link|Orthogonal array testing}}
* {{Annotated link|Pair testing}}
* {{Annotated link|Reverse semantic traceability}}
* {{Annotated link|Software testing tactics}}
* {{Annotated link|Test management tool}}
* {{Annotated link|Trace table}}
* {{Annotated link|Web testing}}
* [[SDET]] – Software Development Engineer in Test
{{div col end}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==

* {{Cite magazine |last=Meyer |first=Bertrand |date=August 2008 |title=Seven Principles of Software Testing |url=https://se.ethz.ch/~meyer/publications/testing/principles.pdf |magazine=Computer |volume=41 |pages=99–101 |doi=10.1109/MC.2008.306 |access-date=November 21, 2017 |number=8}}

== External links ==
{{commons category}}
{{Wikiversity department}}

* [https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2008/03/08/software-that-makes-software-better "Software that makes Software better" Economist.com]
* [[doi:10.1109/TSE.2024.3368208|Software Testing With Large Language Models: Survey, Landscape, and Vision]]

{{Computer science}}
{{Software engineering}}
{{Software testing}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Software testing| ]]
[[Category:Software engineering terminology]]