Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Estimating the Number of Components with Defects Post-Release that Showed No Defects in Testing.
Responsible organisation
2002 (English)In: Software testing, verification & reliability, ISSN 0960-0833, E-ISSN 1099-1689, Vol. 12, no 2, 93-122 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Components that have defects after release, but not during testing, are very undesirable as they point to 'holes' in the testing process. Either new components were not tested enough, or old ones were broken during enhancements and defects slipped through testing undetected. The latter is particularly pernicious, since customers are less forgiving when existing functionality is no longer working than when a new feature is not working quite properly. Rather than using capture-recapture models and curve-fitting methods to estimate the number of remaining defects after inspection, these methods are adapted to estimate the number of components with post-release defects that have no defects in testing. A simple experience-based method is used as a basis for comparison. The estimates can then be used to make decisions on whether or not to stop testing and release software. While most investigations so far have been experimental or have used virtual inspections to do a statistical validation, the investigation presented in this paper is a case study. This case study evaluates how well the capture-recapture, curve-fitting and experience-based methods work in practice. The results show that the methods work quite well. A further benefit of these techniques is that they can be applied to new systems for which no historical data are available and to releases that are very different from each other

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley , 2002. Vol. 12, no 2, 93-122 p.
Keyword [en]
software quality, defect estimation, fault-prone models, capture-recapture methods, curve-fitting methods, release decisions
National Category
Software Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-9987DOI: 10.1002/stvr.235ISI: 000176633800004Local ID: oai:bth.se:forskinfo5AC458B2D98E1243C1256C2B0033A23BOAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-9987DiVA: diva2:837994
Available from: 2012-09-18 Created: 2002-09-05 Last updated: 2015-06-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wohlin, Claes
In the same journal
Software testing, verification & reliability
Software Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 15 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf