Static techniques

Static techniques

• 1.
  BY : YUSRAN INFORMATIONSYSTEM UIN SUSKA RIAU 2017 http://sif.uin-suska.ac.id http://fst.uin-suska.ac.id http://www.uin-suska.ac.id
• 2.
   static testingis a very suitable method for improving the quality of software work products. This applies primarily to the assessed products themselves, but it is also important that the quality improvement is not achieved once but has a more structural character. The feedback from the static testing process to the development process allows for process improvement, which supports the avoidance of similar errors being made in the future.
• 3.
   Reviews varyfrom very informal to formal (i.e. well structured and regulated). Although inspection is perhaps the most documented and formal review tech- nique, it is certainly not the only one. The formality of a review process is related to factors such as the maturity of the development process, any legal or regulatory requirements or the need for an audit trail. In practice the informal review is perhaps the most common type of review. Informal reviews are applied at various times during the early stages in the life cycle of a document.
• 4.
  In contrast toinformal reviews, formal reviews follow a formal process. A typical formal review process consists of six main steps:  Planning  Kick-off  Preparation  Review meeting  Rework  Follow-up.
• 5.
   The reviewprocess for a particular review begins with a 'request for review' by the author to the moderator (or inspection leader). A moderator is often assigned to take care of the scheduling (dates, time, place and invitation) of the review. On a project level, the project planning needs to allow time for review and rework activities, thus providing engineers with time to thoroughly participate in reviews.
• 6.
   Role assignments,checking rate, the pages to be checked, process changes and possible other questions are also discussed during this meeting. Of course the distribution of the document under review, source documents and other related documentation, can also be done during the kick-off.
• 7.
   The participantswork individually on the document under review using the related documents, procedures, rules and checklists provided. The individual participants identify defects, questions and comments, according to their understanding of the document and role.
• 8.
   The meetingtypically consists of the following elements (partly depending on the review type): logging phase, discussion phase and decision phase.During the logging phase the issues, e.g. defects, that have been identified during the preparation are mentioned page by page, reviewer by reviewer and are logged either by the author or by a scribe.
• 9.
   Based onthe defects detected, the author will improve the document under review step by step. Not every defect that is found leads to rework. It is the author's responsibility to judge if a defect has to be fixed. If nothing is done about an issue for a certain reason, it should be reported to at least indicate that the author has considered the issue.
• 10.
   The moderatoris responsible for ensuring that satisfactory actions have been taken on all (logged) defects, process improvement suggestions and change requests. Although the moderator checks to make sure that the author has taken action on all known defects, it is not necessary for the moderator to check all the corrections in detail.
• 11.
   The bestformal reviews come from well-organized teams, guided by trained moderators (or review leaders). Within a review team, four types of participants can be distinguished: moderator, author, scribe and reviewer. In addition man-agement needs to play a role in the review process.
• 12.
   The moderator(or review leader) leads the review process. He or she deter-mines, in co-operation with the author, the type of review, approach and the composition of the review team. The moderator performs the entry check and the follow- up on the rework, in order to control the quality of the input and output of the review process. The moderator also schedules the meeting, disseminates documents before the meeting, coaches other team members, paces the meeting, leads possible discussions and stores the data that is collected.
• 13.
   As thewriter of the document under review, the author's basic goal should be to learn as much as possible with regard to improving the quality of the document, but also to improve his or her ability to write future documents. The author's task is to illuminate unclear areas and to understand the defects found.
• 14.
   During thelogging meeting, the scribe (or recorder) has to record each defect mentioned and any suggestions for process improvement. In practice it is often the author who plays this role, ensuring that the log is readable and understand-able. If authors record their own defects, or at least make their own notes in their own words, it helps them to understand the log better during rework.
• 15.
   The taskof the reviewers (also called checkers or inspectors) is to check any material for defects, mostly prior to the meeting. The level of thoroughness required depends on the type of review. The level of domain knowledge or tech-nical expertise needed by the reviewers also depends on the type of review. Reviewers should be chosen to represent different perspectives and roles in the review process.
• 16.
   The manageris involved in the reviews as he or she decides on the execution of reviews, allocates time in project schedules and determines whether review process objectives have been met. The manager will also take care of any review training requested by the participants. Of course a manager can also be involved in the review itself depending on his or her background, playing the role of a reviewer if this would be helpful.
• 17.
   A walkthroughis characterized by the author of the document under review guiding the participants through the document and his or her thought processes, to achieve a common understanding and to gather feedback. This is especially useful if people from outside the software discipline are present, who are not used to, or cannot easily understand software development documents. The content of the document is explained step by step by the author, to reach consensus on changes or to gather information.
• 18.
   A technicalreview is a discussion meeting that focuses on achieving con-sensus about the technical content of a document. Compared to inspec-tions, technical reviews are less formal and there is little or no focus on defect identification on the basis of referenced documents, intended read-ership and rules. During technical reviews defects are found by experts, who focus on the content of the document.
• 19.
   Inspection isthe most formal review type. The document under inspection is prepared and checked thoroughly by the reviewers before the meeting, compar-ing the work product with its sources and other referenced documents, and using rules and checklists. In the inspection meeting the defects found are logged and any discussion is postponed until the discussion phase. This makes the inspection meeting a very efficient meeting.