Empirical Software Engineering
What Do We Know about Defect Detection Methods?
IEEE Software
Information and Software Technology
Optimizing cost and quality by integrating inspection and test processes
Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Software and Systems Process
A systematic mapping study on the combination of static and dynamic quality assurance techniques
Information and Software Technology
Evaluating three approaches to extracting fault data from software change repositories
PROFES'10 Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Code inspections and white-box testing have both beenused for unit testing. One is a static analysis technique, theother a dynamic one, since it is based on executing testcases. Naturally, the question arises whether one is superiorto the other, or, whether either technique is bettersuited to detect or isolate certain types of defects. We investigatedthis question with an experiment with a focus ondetection of the defects (failures) and isolation of theunderlying sources of the defects (faults). The results indicatethat there exist significant differences for some of theeffects of using code inspection versus testing. White-boxtesting is more effective, i.e. detects significantly moredefects while inspection isolates the underlying source of alarger share of the defects detected. Testers spend significantlymore time, hence the difference in efficiency issmaller, and is not statistically significant. The two techniquesare also shown to detect and identify differentdefects, hence motivating the use of a combination of methods.