Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Determining the number of tests required to test a method

Expand Messages
  • Mike Foley
    Interesting essay on something called pair-wise testing and
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Interesting essay on something called pair-wise testing
      &ObjectId=8581> and orthagonal arrays...

      Something that had puzzled me recently is determining the number of
      tests needed to validate a method when there are many arguments or many
      different values to the arguments. The cross-product of all the
      possible arguments and data can become very large very quickly. For
      example, let's say the method1() could take arguments like this:

      Arg1.... 8 possible options.
      Arg2..... 12 possible options
      Arg3.........yes or no...2 options
      Arg4...... 4 possible options

      So at first glance, to test this completely with all permutations of
      data, you might think of the cross-product of the arguments ....8 x 12
      x 2 x 4 .... = 768. Wow....that is a lot of tests to write!

      So ...yes, there is code coverage for answering questions of
      completeness ....but I just found maybe another approach as well.

      The .pdf below the article in the link describes an approach for
      determining the number of tests required for testing an application
      that is apparently almost as complete and thorough as the
      cross-product, but much more manageable from a testing perspective. The
      article discusses 3 approaches. I actually tried the 2nd approach on
      the example above...using a free download discussed in the essay called
      'allpairs' .

      Rather than 768 tests in the cross-product of all the arguments ...the
      program defined a mere 58 tests using specific combinations of data .
      Or so says this this theory.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.