American Journal of Software Engineering and Applications
Volume 4, Issue 1, February 2015, Pages: 15-22
Received: Mar. 12, 2015;
Accepted: Mar. 20, 2015;
Published: Apr. 15, 2015
Views 5200 Downloads 223
Pawan Singh, School of Informatics, IOT, Hawassa University, Awassa, Ethiopia
Mulualem Wordofa Regassa, School of Informatics, IOT, Hawassa University, Awassa, Ethiopia
An automated testing tool helps the testers to quantify the quality of software by testing the software automatically. To quantify the quality of software there is always a requirement of good testing tools, which satisfy the testing requirement of the project. Although there is a wide range of testing tools available in the market and they vary in approach, quality, usability and other characteristics. Selecting the appropriate testing tool for software there is a requirement of a methodology to prioritize them on the basis of some characteristics. We propose a set of metrics for measuring the characteristics of the automated testing tools for examination and selection of automated testing tools. A new extended model which is proposed provides the metrics to calculate the effectiveness of functional testing tools on the basis of operability. The industry will be benefited as they can use these metrics to evaluate functional tools and they can further make selection of tool for their software required to be tested and hence reduce the testing effort, saving time and gaining maximum monetary benefit.
Mulualem Wordofa Regassa,
Metrics for Quantification of the Software Testing Tools Effectiveness, American Journal of Software Engineering and Applications.
Vol. 4, No. 1,
2015, pp. 15-22.
J. T. McCabe, “A complexity measure,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng. SE-2, 4, pp. 308-320, Dec 1976.
C. Dekkers, “Demystifying Function point: Lets understandsome terminology,” IT metrics strategies, Oct 1998.
M. H. Halested, “Elements of software science, ” New York: Elsevier Science, 1977.
S. R. Chidamber and R. F. Kemerer, “Ametrics suite for object-oriented design,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng.vol. 20, 6, pp. 476-493,June1994.
W. Li and S. Henry, “Object oriented metrics that predicts maintainability,” Journal of System and Software, vol. 23, 2, pp. 111- 122, Nov 1993.
B. Daniel and M. Boshernitsan, “Predicting and explaining automated testing tool effectiveness,” University of Illiois at Urban- Campaign, Tech. Rep. UIUCDCS-R-2008-2956, April 2008.
M. Lorenz and J. Kidd, “Object Oriented Software Metrics,” Printice Hall Publishing, 1994.
McCabe & Associates, McCabe Object Oriented Tool Usre’s Instruction, 1994.
Linda H. Rosenberg, “Metrics for Object Oriented Environment,” EFAITP/AIE Third Annual Software Metrics Conference, December 97.
R. Hudli, C. Hoskins and A. Hudli, “Software Metrics for Object Oriented Design,” IEEE, 1994.
Y. Lee, B. Liang and F. Wang, “Some Complexity Metrics for Object Oriented Program Based on Information Flow,” Proceedings: CompEuro, pp. 302-310, March 1993.
C. Youngblut and B. Brykczynski, “An examination of selected software testing tools: 1992,” IDA Paper, Inst. For Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Va., pp -2925, Oct. 1993.
C. Youngblut and B. Brykczynski, “An examination of selected software testing tools: 1993,” Supp. IDA Paper, Inst. For Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Va., pp -2769, Dec. 1992.
G. T. Daich, G. Price, B. Ragland, and M. Dawood, “Software test technologies report,” Software Technology Support Center, Hill AFB, Utah, Aug. 1994.
J. Thatcher, “Evaluation and Repair Tools,” posted on http://www.jimthatcher.com, June 2002.
M. Y. Ivory, R. R. Sinha and H. A. Hearst, “Empirically validated web page design metrics,” In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 53-60, New York, NY, ACM press, 2001.
R. M. Poston and M. P. Sexton, “Evaluating and selecting testing tools,” IEEE Software, vol. 9, 3, pp. 33-42, May 1992.