Software Defects: Stay Away from Them. Do Inspections!

Abstract

All software system fails. However, a development team can identify and remove as probability of software to fail. Identifying and throughout the software development proce important approach to improve software qu evidence about the feasibility, efficiency and software inspections to support the identific Besides their low cost, the performance of in positively influenced by the technique used Despite all these benefits, the use of inspectio place in the software industry. Therefore, this Q speech intends to discuss the benefits of Softwa method and techniques) and their use in software

Defect Types and Software Inspection Techniques: A Systematic Mapping Study

“…Two studies are empirically evidenced and one study is non-evidenced. Thus, such common defect types existing in the literature occurs in the three studies of Travassos et al (1999;Rocha et al, 2015;Travassos, 2014) non-evidenced. The next discussions of each study of such domain are presented as follows:…”

“…Continue Felderer et al (2014) On the role of defect taxonomy types for testin 2014 IEEE Xplore requirements: Results of a controlled experiment Rodriguez et al (2014) Preliminary comparison of techniques for dealing with 2014 ACM Digital Library imbalance in software defect prediction Femmer et al (2014) Rapid requirements checks with requirements smells: 2014 ACM Digital Library Two case studies Yusop et al (2016) Reporting usability defects: Do reporters report what 2016 ACM Digital Library software developers need? Cavezza et al (2014) Reproducibility of environment-dependent software 2014 IEEE Xplore failures: An experience report Langenfeld et al (2016) Requirements defects over a project lifetime: An 2016 Compendex SpringerLink empirical analysis of defect data from a 5-year automotive project at bosch Saito et al (2014) RISDM: A requirements inspection systems design 2014 IEEE Xplore methodology -perspective-based design of the pragmatic quality model and question set to SRS Travassos (2014) Software defects: Stay away from them. Do inspections!…”

“…In summary, the studies presented in this section answered RQ1 and provided defect types taking into account by software inspection techniques, encompassing studies such as: (i) new adapted taxonomies for detect defect types and different artifacts (Anda and Sjøberg, 2002;Travassos et al, 1999); (ii) new inspection techniques evaluated by experiments (e.g., TUCCA (Belgamo et al, 2005), SPLIT (Cunha et al 2012), FMCheck (Mello et al, 2012), PVMCheck (Teixeira et al, 2015;SmartyCheck (Geraldi et al, 2015), AGI (Rocha et al, 2015) and MoLVERIC (Lopes et al, 2015); (iii) experiments that presented defect types based on requirements engineering and compared inspection techniques (Alshazly et al, 2014;Kasubuchi et al, 2015;Langenfeld et al, 2016); and (iv) an overview of existing defect types by Travassos (2014) and emphasis on failures by Munson et al (2006). Figure 11 presents the results obtained that answered RQ2 with regard to which inspection techniques/approaches provide evidence of defect types and has documented evaluation results.…”

Towards Initial Evidence of SMartyCheck for Defect Detection on Product-Line Use Case and Class Diagrams

“…The main ones are Checklist-Based Reading (CBR) [1], [2], [27], Perspective-Based Reading (PBR) [16], [20], [32], [34] and Ad hoc technique [31]. CBR uses a document in a checklist format with clear items (yes/no) stated in the form of questions.…”

A metamodel to support the formalization of coding conventions

“…Verification & Validation (V&V) is a process that aims to ensure the quality of software [50], where: validation "is the process of evaluating software at the end of software development to ensure compliance with intended usage", and verification "is the process of determining whether the products of a given phase of the software development process fulfill the requirements established during the previous phase" [10, p. 11 ].…”