scholarly journals A Surwey of Automated Testing Tools

Software applications are widely used in almost every field now-a-days. A full functional application is developed after passing through different phases of Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC), till the end user starts using it. Testing the application is one of the major tasks of Software Development Life Cycle known as SDLC. This activity is done for the effective performance, tracking out causes of inefficiencies and verifying whether a module or application fulfills the requirements. The purpose is to avoid defects, abnormal behavior, minimize risks of failure and ensure that the system is defect free. Testing can be done in both manually and automatically. Manual ways are not trust worthy because humans make mistakes and machines don’t if it’s programmed correctly. In this paper we have performed critical analysis on the automated testing tools available for .NET (which is a software development platform by Microsoft) determines their effects on effort, quality, productivity and cost of the product [9].

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
AZM Ehtesham Chowdhury ◽  
Abhijit Bhowmik ◽  
Hasibul Hasan ◽  
Md Shamsur Rahim

Currently, software industries are using different SDLC (software development life cycle) models which are designed for specific purposes. The use of technology is booming in every perspective of life and the software behind the technology plays an enormous role. As the technical complexities are increasing, successful development of software solely depends on the proper management of development processes. So, it is inevitable to introduce improved methodologies in the industry so that modern human centred software applications development can be managed and delivered to the user successfully. So, in this paper, we have explored the facts of different SDLC models and perform their comparative analysis.


Author(s):  
Andriy Lishchytovych ◽  
Volodymyr Pavlenko

The present article describes setup, configuration and usage of the key performance indicators (KPIs) of members of project teams involved into the software development life cycle. Key performance indicators are described for the full software development life cycle and imply the deep integration with both task tracking systems and project code management systems, as well as a software product quality testing system. To illustrate, we used the extremely popular products - Atlassian Jira (tracking development tasks and bugs tracking system) and git (code management system). The calculation of key performance indicators is given for a team of three developers, two testing engineers responsible for product quality, one designer, one system administrator, one product manager (responsible for setting business requirements) and one project manager. For the key members of the team, it is suggested to use one integral key performance indicator per the role / team member, which reflects the quality of the fulfillment of the corresponding role of the tasks. The model of performance indicators is inverse positive - the initial value of each of the indicators is zero and increases in the case of certain deviations from the standard performance of official duties inherent in a particular role. The calculation of the proposed key performance indicators can be fully automated (in particular, using Atlassian Jira and Atlassian Bitbucket (git) or any other systems, like Redmine, GitLab or TestLink), which eliminates the human factor and, after the automation, does not require any additional effort to calculate. Using such a tool as the key performance indicators allows project managers to completely eliminate bias, reduce the emotional component and provide objective data for the project manager. The described key performance indicators can be used to reduce the time required to resolve conflicts in the team, increase productivity and improve the quality of the software product.


Author(s):  
Sampada G.C ◽  
Tende Ivo Sake ◽  
Amrita

Background: With the advancement in the field of software development, software poses threats and risks to customers’ data and privacy. Most of these threats are persistent because security is mostly considered as a feature or a non-functional requirement, not taken into account during the software development life cycle (SDLC). Introduction: In order to evaluate the security performance of a software system, it is necessary to integrate the security metrics during the SDLC. The appropriate security metrics adopted for each phase of SDLC aids in defining the security goals and objectives of the software as well as quantify the security in the software. Methods: This paper presents systematic review and catalog of security metrics that can be adopted during the distinguishable phases of SDLC, security metrics for vulnerability and risk assessment reported in the literature for secure development of software. The practices of these metrics enable software security experts to improve the security characteristics of the software being developed. The critical analysis of security metrics of each phase and their comparison are also discussed. Results: Security metrics obtained during the development processes help to improve the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of software. Hence, it is imperative to consider security during the development of the software, which can be done with the use of software security metrics. Conclusion: This paper reviews the various security metrics that are meditated in the copious phases during the progression of the SDLC in order to provide researchers and practitioners with substantial knowledge for adaptation and further security assessment.


2016 ◽  
Vol 685 ◽  
pp. 881-885
Author(s):  
Alexey Ponomarev ◽  
Hitesh S. Nalamwar

Software traceability is an important part in software development that is getting more and more attention nowadays from organizations and researchers. The paper outlines the importance, different methods and techniques of software traceability. It also explains the need of automating traceability, problems and drawbacks of existing traceability tools, the ongoing challenges facing implementation of traceability in software development life cycle, and finally the paper discusses whether software traceability should be mandated as a key to improve software evolution


2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M.A. Adeagbo ◽  
J.E.T. Akinsola ◽  
A.A. Awoseyi ◽  
F. Kasali

Selection of a suitable Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) model for project implementation is somewhat confusing as there are a lot of SDLC models with similar strengths and weaknesses. Also, the solutions proffered among the researchers so far have been the  qualitative comparative analysis of SDLC models. Hence, this paper proposes a comparative analysis of SDLC models using quantitative approach in relation to strengths and weaknesses of SDLC models. The study adapted comparative analysis and Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) models features’ classification using ten characteristics such as project complexity, project size, project duration, project with risk, implementation/initial cost, error discovery, associated cost, risk analysis, maintenance and cost estimation. A quantitative measure that employs online survey using experts in software design and engineering, project management and system analysis was carried out for the evaluation of SDLC models. Purposeful Stratified Random Sampling (SRS) technique was used to gather the data for analysis using XLSTAT after pre-processing, taking into consideration both benefit and cost criteria. The overall performance evaluation showed that Spiral-Model is the best followed by V-Model and lastly Waterfall Model with comparative values of 38.63%, 35.76% and 25.61% respectively. As regards cost estimation, Waterfall Model is the most efficient with value of 41%, then V-Model with 31% and lastly Spiral Model with 28%. V-Model has great error recovery capability with value of 45% which is closely followed by Spiral Model with 37% and lastly Waterfall Model with 18%. The study revealed that, a model with efficient risk assurance does not guarantee efficient cost management. In the future work, more characteristics regarding SDLC models shall be considered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document