1 / 26

Messtechnik fuer die Software-Qualitätssicherung

Jena-2013. Messtechnik fuer die Software-Qualitätssicherung. GI-Fachtreffen Jena 22. Januar 2013 Harry M. Sneed. Entwicklungsaufwand - Anpassungsaufwand. Entwicklungsaufwand - Änderungsaufwand. Testfälle - Fehlerhafte Testfälle.

jessica-mcgowan
Download Presentation

Messtechnik fuer die Software-Qualitätssicherung

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jena-2013 Messtechnik fuer die Software-Qualitätssicherung GI-Fachtreffen Jena 22. Januar 2013 Harry M. Sneed

  2. Entwicklungsaufwand - Anpassungsaufwand Entwicklungsaufwand - Änderungsaufwand Testfälle - Fehlerhafte Testfälle Abgefangene Eingriffe * Abgefangene Fehler Ist-Responsezeit * Ist-Durchlaufzeit Wiederverwendete Anweisungen Entwicklungsaufwand Entwicklungsaufwand Testfälle Eingriffe Systemfehler Anweisungen Max-Responsezeit Max-Durchlaufzeit Software-Qualitätsziele Ziel Metrik Entwicklungsaufwand – Änderungsaufwand Entwicklungsaufwand Korrigierbarkeit = Uebertragbarkeit = Änderbarkeit = Wiederverwendbarkeit = Zuverlässigkeit = Sicherheit = Effizienz =

  3. Software-Qualitätsskala 1000Fehler 0Fehler 0,0 1,0 0,25 0,5 0,75 unendlichschlecht unendlichgut Minimum tolerierbareQualität MaximumereichbareQualität 5 Fehler pro1000 Anweisungen bzw. 10 Function-Points 50 Data-Points 1 Fehler pro1000 Anweisungen bzw. 10 Function-Points 50 Data-Points

  4. Software Quality Assessment Scale 1,0 excellent good Rated Level satisfactory measuredvalue sufficient poor unsatisfactory 0,0 Metric Scale Assessment Level

  5. Software Product Quality Model Goals Product Code Test Require ments Design Attributes Attrib utes Attributes Attributes Metrics Metrics Metrics Metrics

  6. Software Metric Classes Requirement Document (English) Design Model (UML) Requ Metrics Code Design Metrics Test Cases Code Metrics Classes of Metrics Test Metrics

  7. Requirement Quality Attributes • Completenessmisst das Verhältnis der Anzahl fehlender Spezifikationsattribute zur Summe aller Spezifikationsattribute. • Consistency misst das Verhältnis der Anzahl Objektdefinitionen zur Anzahl Objektreferenzen. • Modularity misst das Verhältnis der mittleren Größe der Anforderungstexte zur maximal zulässiger Größe. • Testabilitymisst das Verhältnis der Anzahl Testfälle zur Anzahl zu testenden Textabschnitte, Anforderungen und Anwendungsfälle. • Conformity misst das Verhältnis der Anzahl Regelverletzungen zur Anzahl Sätze im Text.

  8. Requirement Quality Metrics

  9. Requirement Quality Measurement +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | C O N C E P T C O M P L E X I T Y M E T R I C S | | | | Data Density =======> 0.217 | | Functional Density =======> 0.321 | | Conditional Density =======> 0.172 | | Referential Density =======> 0.802 | | Test Case Density =======> 0.386 | | Overall Requirement Complexity Rating =======> 0.380 | | | | C O N C E P T Q U A L I T Y M E T R I C S | | | | Degree of Completeness =======> 0.892 | | Degree of Consistency =======> 0.745 | | Degree of Changeability =======> 0.661 | | Degree of Testability =======> 0.322 | | Degree of Conformity =======> 0.798 | | Overall Requirement Quality Rating =======> 0.684 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | C O N C E P T D E F I C I E N C Y M E T R I C S | | | | Number of Major Rule Violations =======> 0 | | Number of Medium Rule Violations =======> 9 | | Number of Minor Rule Violations =======> 151 | | Number of Missing Attributes =======> 8 | | Number of Missing References =======> 1 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  10. Requirement AnalysisDemonstration Lastenheftmessung mit dem Tool GerAudit

  11. Design Quality Attributes Ist Design Design Quality = ---------------------------------- Soll Design Whereby 1 = the total quality fulfillment and 0 = the total lack of quality 0,5 = median quality • 10 quality metrics selected are: • Degree of Class Coupling • Degree of Class Cohesion • Degree of Modularity • Degree of Portability • Degree of Reusability • Degree of Testability • Degree of Conformity • Degree of Consistency • Degree of Completeness • Degree of Compliance.

  12. Design Quality Metrics Class Coupling = : {Nr_Classes [7] / Nr_Class_Associations [13] } = 0,53 Class Cohesion = : 1 - ( Nr_Attributes [35] / Nr_Methods [84] ) = 0,42 Class Modularity = : ( Nr_Classes [7] * Min-Nr-Methods-per-Class [4] ) / Nr_Methods [84] = 0,33 Class Completeness = :  ( Nr_Classes in Sequence [5] / Nr_Classes defined [7]) + (Nr_Object States [ 4] / Nr Classes defined [7] ) / 2 = 0,64 System Testability = : 1 – { (Nr_UseCases [3] + (Nr_Classes [7] + Nr_Interfaces [15]) / (Nr_Paths [7] + Nr_Attributes [35] + Nr_Parameters [90] ) } = 0,80

  13. Design Measurement +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | S O F A U D I T D E S I G N M E T R I C R E P O R T | | | | LANGUAGE: UML DATE: 11.07.09 | | MODULE: SPIKE PAGE: 1 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Q U A N T I T Y M E T R I C S | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | D E S I G N D I A G R A M M E T R I C S | | | | Number of Design Diagrams analyzed =======> 144 | | Number of UseCase Diagrams analyzed =======> 12 | | Number of Activity Diagrams analyzed =======> 0 | | Number of Class Diagrams analyzed =======> 48 | | Number of Sequence Diagrams analyzed =======> 84 | | Number of Collaborate Diagrams analyzed =======> 0 | | Number of State Diagrams analyzed =======> 0 | | Number of Component Diagrams analyzed =======> 0 | | Number of Distribute Diagrams analyzed =======> 0 | | | | S T R U C T U R A L Q U A N T I T Y M E T R I C S | | | | Number of Design Entities =======> 424 | | Number of Design Entities referenced =======> 311 | | Number of conforming Entity Names =======> 328 | | Number of required Use cases =======> 22 | | Number of Systems =======> 3 | | Number of System Use Cases =======> 21 | | Number of System Actors specified =======> 16 | | Number of System Components specified =======> 10 | | Number of Class Interfaces specified =======> 24 | | Number of Classes specified =======> 12 | | Number of Base/Super Classes specified =======> 0 | | Number of Methods specified =======> 34 | | Number of Parameters specified =======> 239 | | Number of Attributes specified =======> 23 | | Number of Activities specified =======> 0 | | Number of Objects specified =======> 39 | | Number of Object States specified =======> 0 | | Number of Conditional Rules specified =======> 25 | | Number of Stereotypes defined =======> 2 |

  14. Continuation of Design Measurement +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | R E L A T I O N A L Q U A N T I T Y M E T R I C S | | | | Number of Design Relationships =======> 299 | | Number of Use Case Relations =======> 48 | | Number of Class Associations =======> 41 | | Number of Class Generalizations =======> 0 | | Number of Class Hierarchy Levels =======> 1 | | Number of Interactions/Collaborations =======> 243 | | Number of Methods referenced =======> 36 | | Number of Activity Control Flows =======> 0 | | Number of State Transitions =======> 0 | | Number of required Test Cases =======> 359 | | | | D E S I G N S I Z E M E T R I C S | | | | Number of Data-Points =======> 741 | | Number of Object Points =======> 898 | | Number of Function Points =======> 528 | | Number of Use-Case Points =======> 482 | | Number of Test Points =======> 383 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  15. Continuation of Design Metric Report +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | S O F A U D I T D E S I G N M E T R I C R E P O R T | | | | LANGUAGE: UML DATE: 11.07.09 | | MODULE: SPIKE PAGE: 2 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | D E S I G N C O M P L E X I T Y M E T R I C S | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | CLASS INTERACTION COMPLEXITY =======> 0.953 | | CLASS HIERARCHICAL COMPLEXITY =======> 0.166 | | CLASS DATA COMPLEXITY =======> 0.633 | | CLASS FUNCTIONAL COMPLEXITY =======> 0.411 | | STATE COMPLEXITY =======> 0.692 | | STATE TRANSITION COMPLEXITY =======> 0.500 | | ACTIVITY COMPLEXITY =======> 0.500 | | USECASE COMPLEXITY =======> 0.562 | | ACTOR INTERACTION COMPLEXITY =======> 0.238 | | OVERALL DESIGN COMPLEXITY =======> 0.418 | | | | AVERAGE DESIGN COMPLEXITY =======> 0.507 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | D E S I G N Q U A L I T Y M E T R I C S | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | CLASS COUPLING =======> 0.443 | | CLASS COHESION =======> 0.323 | | DESIGN MODULARITY =======> 0.705 | | DESIGN PORTABILITY =======> 0.347 | | DESIGN REUSABILITY =======> 0.161 | | DESIGN TESTABILITY =======> 0.534 | | DESIGN CONFORMANCE =======> 0.773 | | DESIGN COMPLETENESS =======> 0.250 | | DESIGN CONSISTENCY =======> 0.563 | | DESIGN COMPLIANCE =======> 0.954 | | | | AVERAGE DESIGN QUALITY =======> 0.505 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  16. Design Model AnalysisDemonstration UML-Modellmessung mit dem Tool UMLAudit

  17. Internal Code Quality Attributes Modularity Flexibility Portability Code Portability Conformity Convertibility Maintainability Testability

  18. Code Quality Metrics Code Coupling = : (Nr_Modules / Nr_Module_Interactions) Code Cohesion = : 1 - ( Nr_Data_Declares / Nr_Methods) Code Modularity = : Coupling * Cohesion * ( average_Mod_Size / Soll_Mod_Size) Code Reusability = :  Nr_reusable_Modules / Nr_Modules Code Convertibility = :  Nr_convertible_Statements / Nr_Statements Code Flexibilty = :  1 – (Nr_Constants / Nr_Data_Used) Code Testability = : (Nr_Entry_Points / Nr_Functions) * (Nr_Entry_Points / Nr_Parameters) * (Nr_Branches / Nr_Statements)

  19. Code Quality Visualization

  20. Measurement of COBOL Code Quality +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | C O M P L E X I T Y M E T R I C S | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | DATA COMPLEXITY (Chapin Metric) =======> 0.235 | | DATA FLOW COMPLEXITY (Elshof Metric) =======> 0.707 | | DATA ACCESS COMPLEXITY (Card Metric) =======> 0.924 | | INTERFACE COMPLEXITY (Henry Metric) =======> 0.608 | | CONTROL FLOW COMPLEXITY (McCabe Metric) =======> 0.611 | | DECISIONAL COMPLEXITY (McClure Metric) =======> 0.481 | | BRANCHING COMPLEXITY (Sneed Metric) =======> 0.796 | | LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY (Halstead Metric) =======> 0.156 | | | | AVERAGE PROGRAM COMPLEXITY =======> 0.564 | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Q U A L I T Y M E T R I C S | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | DEGREE OF MODULARITY =======> 0.511 | | DEGREE OF PORTABILITY =======> 0.155 | | DEGREE OF TESTABILITY =======> 0.582 | | DEGREE OF REUSABILITY =======> 0.214 | | DEGREE OF CONVERTIBILITY =======> 0.466 | | DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY =======> 0.567 | | DEGREE OF CONFORMITY =======> 0.279 | | DEGREE OF MAINTAINABILITY =======> 0.433 | | | | AVERAGE PROGRAM QUALITY =======> 0.400 | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  21. Measurement of Java Code Quality +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | DATA COMPLEXITY (Chapin Metric) =======> 0.471 | | DATA FLOW COMPLEXITY (Elshof Metric) =======> 0.857 | | DATA ACCESS COMPLEXITY (Card Metric) =======> 0.333 | | INTERFACE COMPLEXITY (Henry Metric) =======> 0.507 | | CONTROL FLOW COMPLEXITY (McCabe Metric) =======> 0.287 | | DECISIONAL COMPLEXITY (McClure Metric) =======> 0.173 | | BRANCHING COMPLEXITY (Sneed Metric) =======> 0.458 | | LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY (Halstead Metric) =======> 0.499 | | | | WEIGHTED AVERAGE PROGRAM COMPLEXITY =======> 0.448 | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Q U A L I T Y M E T R I C S | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | DEGREE OF MODULARITY =======> 0.921 | | DEGREE OF PORTABILITY =======> 0.880 | | DEGREE OF TESTABILITY =======> 0.798 | | DEGREE OF REUSABILITY =======> 0.960 | | DEGREE OF CONVERTIBILITY =======> 0.914 | | DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY =======> 0.444 | | DEGREE OF CONFORMITY =======> 0.339 | | DEGREE OF MAINTAINABILITY =======> 0.639 | | | | WEIGHTED AVERAGE PROGRAM QUALITY =======> 0.736 | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  22. Java Code AnalysisDemonstration Codemessung mit dem Tool JavAudit

  23. Test Quality Attributes Repeatability Conformity Reliability Test Portability Effectiveness Coverage

  24. Test Quality Metrics • Test Case Effectiveness = 1 – (test cases / impacted functions) • Test Case Repeatability = (automated test cases / test cases ) • Test Case Conformity = ( formally correct test attributes / • total test case attributes ) • Test case Completeness = ( Ist_Testfälle /Soll_Testfälle) • Requirements Coverage = _Getestete Anforderungen_ • Spezifizierte Anforderungen • Design Coverage = __Getestete Modellelemente__ • Alle Modelelemente • Code Coverage = Getestete Anweisungen, bzw. Zweige • Anweisungen, bzw. Zweige • Test Case Coverage = Ausgeführte Testfälle • Spezifizierte Testfälle • Test Reliability = Gewichtete Fehlermeldungen aus dem Testbetrieb • Summe aller gewichteten Fehlermeldungen • Test Effectiveness = 1 - Gewichtete Fehler x Überdeckung • ausgeführte Testfälle

  25. Test AnalysisDemonstration Testmessung mit dem Tool TestDoc

More Related