Transcript Entwicklungsaufwand

Jena-2013
Messtechnik fuer die
Software-Qualitätssicherung
GI-Fachtreffen Jena
22. Januar 2013
Harry M. Sneed
Software-Qualitätsziele
Ziel
Metrik
Entwicklungsaufwand – Änderungsaufwand
Entwicklungsaufwand
Korrigierbarkeit
=
Uebertragbarkeit
=
Entwicklungsaufwand - Anpassungsaufwand
Entwicklungsaufwand
Änderbarkeit
=
Entwicklungsaufwand - Änderungsaufwand
Entwicklungsaufwand
Wiederverwendbarkeit =
Wiederverwendete Anweisungen
Anweisungen
=
Testfälle - Fehlerhafte Testfälle
Testfälle
Sicherheit
=
Abgefangene Eingriffe * Abgefangene Fehler
Eingriffe
Systemfehler
Effizienz
=
Zuverlässigkeit
Ist-Responsezeit
Max-Responsezeit
*
Ist-Durchlaufzeit
Max-Durchlaufzeit
Software-Qualitätsskala
1000
Fehler
0,0
1,0
0,25
0,5
0,75
unendlich
schlecht
unendlich
gut
Minimum
tolerierbare
Qualität
5
1000
10
50
0
Fehler
Fehler pro
Anweisungen bzw.
Function-Points
Data-Points
Maximum
ereichbare
Qualität
1
1000
10
50
Fehler pro
Anweisungen bzw.
Function-Points
Data-Points
Software Quality Assessment Scale
1,0
excellent
measured
value
good
Rated Level
satisfactory
sufficient
poor
unsatisfactory
0,0
Metric Scale
Assessment
Level
Software Product Quality Model
Goals
Product
Require
ments
Design
Code
Test
Attrib
utes
Attrib
utes
Attrib
utes
Attrib
utes
Metrics
Metrics
Metrics
Metrics
Software Metric Classes
Requirement
Document
(English)
Requ
Metrics
Design
Model
(UML)
Code
Design
Metrics
Test
Cases
Classes of Metrics
Code
Metrics
Test
Metrics
Requirement Quality Attributes
• Completeness misst das Verhältnis der Anzahl fehlender
Spezifikationsattribute zur Summe aller Spezifikationsattribute.
• Consistency misst das Verhältnis der Anzahl Objektdefinitionen zur
Anzahl Objektreferenzen.
• Modularity misst das Verhältnis der mittleren Größe der
Anforderungstexte zur maximal zulässiger Größe.
• Testability misst das Verhältnis der Anzahl Testfälle zur Anzahl zu
testenden Textabschnitte, Anforderungen und Anwendungsfälle.
• Conformity misst das Verhältnis der Anzahl Regelverletzungen zur
Anzahl Sätze im Text.
Requirement Quality Metrics
The requirement quality metrics are computed as follows:
= 1 – (Number of missing attributes
/ Number of attributes)

Completeness

Consistency= 1 (Number of missing references
/ Number of object references)



Modularity = 1 – (Number of sections
+ Number of requirements
+ Number of usecases)
/ Number of sentences
Testability = (Number of sections
+ Number of requirements
+ Number of usecases)
/ Number of test cases
Conformity = 1 – (Weighted deficiencies
/ Number of sentences)
Requirement Quality Measurement
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
C O N C E P T
C O M P L E X I T Y
M E T R I C S
|
|
|
|
Data Density
=======>
0.217
|
|
Functional Density
=======>
0.321
|
|
Conditional Density
=======>
0.172
|
|
Referential Density
=======>
0.802
|
|
Test Case Density
=======>
0.386
|
|
Overall Requirement Complexity Rating
=======>
0.380
|
|
|
|
C O N C E P T
Q U A L I T Y
M E T R I C S
|
|
|
|
Degree of Completeness
=======>
0.892
|
|
Degree of Consistency
=======>
0.745
|
|
Degree of Changeability
=======>
0.661
|
|
Degree of Testability
=======>
0.322
|
|
Degree of Conformity
=======>
0.798
|
|
Overall Requirement Quality Rating
=======>
0.684
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
C O N C E P T
D E F I C I E N C Y
M E T R I C S
|
|
|
|
Number of Major Rule Violations
=======>
0
|
|
Number of Medium Rule Violations
=======>
9
|
|
Number of Minor Rule Violations
=======>
151
|
|
Number of Missing Attributes
=======>
8
|
|
Number of Missing References
=======>
1
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Requirement Analysis
Demonstration
Lastenheftmessung
mit dem Tool GerAudit
Design Quality Attributes
Ist Design
Design Quality = ---------------------------------Soll Design
Whereby 1 = the total quality fulfillment and
0 = the total lack of quality
0,5 = median quality
10 quality metrics selected are:
• Degree of Class Coupling
• Degree of Class Cohesion
• Degree of Modularity
• Degree of Portability
• Degree of Reusability
• Degree of Testability
• Degree of Conformity
• Degree of Consistency
• Degree of Completeness
• Degree of Compliance.
Design Quality Metrics
Class Coupling = :
{Nr_Classes [7] / Nr_Class_Associations [13] } = 0,53
Class Cohesion = :
1 - ( Nr_Attributes [35] / Nr_Methods [84] ) = 0,42
Class Modularity = :
( Nr_Classes [7] * Min-Nr-Methods-per-Class [4] ) / Nr_Methods [84] = 0,33
Class Completeness = :
( Nr_Classes in Sequence [5] / Nr_Classes defined [7]) + (Nr_Object
States [ 4] / Nr Classes defined [7] ) / 2 = 0,64
System Testability = :
1 – { (Nr_UseCases [3] + (Nr_Classes [7] + Nr_Interfaces [15]) /
(Nr_Paths [7] + Nr_Attributes [35] + Nr_Parameters [90] ) } = 0,80
Design Measurement
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
S O F A U D I T
D E S I G N
M E T R I C
R E P O R T
|
|
|
|
LANGUAGE: UML
DATE: 11.07.09
|
|
MODULE: SPIKE
PAGE:
1
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
Q U A N T I T Y
M E T R I C S
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
|
|
D E S I G N
D I A G R A M
M E T R I C S
|
|
|
|
Number of Design Diagrams analyzed
=======>
144
|
|
Number of UseCase Diagrams analyzed
=======>
12
|
|
Number of Activity Diagrams analyzed
=======>
0
|
|
Number of Class Diagrams analyzed
=======>
48
|
|
Number of Sequence Diagrams analyzed
=======>
84
|
|
Number of Collaborate Diagrams analyzed =======>
0
|
|
Number of State Diagrams analyzed
=======>
0
|
|
Number of Component Diagrams analyzed
=======>
0
|
|
Number of Distribute Diagrams analyzed
=======>
0
|
|
|
|
S T R U C T U R A L Q U A N T I T Y M E T R I C S
|
|
|
|
Number of Design Entities
=======>
424
|
|
Number of Design Entities referenced
=======>
311
|
|
Number of conforming Entity Names
=======>
328
|
|
Number of required Use cases
=======>
22
|
|
Number of Systems
=======>
3
|
|
Number of System Use Cases
=======>
21
|
|
Number of System Actors specified
=======>
16
|
|
Number of System Components specified
=======>
10
|
|
Number of Class Interfaces specified
=======>
24
|
|
Number of Classes specified
=======>
12
|
|
Number of Base/Super Classes specified
=======>
0
|
|
Number of Methods specified
=======>
34
|
|
Number of Parameters specified
=======>
239
|
|
Number of Attributes specified
=======>
23
|
|
Number of Activities specified
=======>
0
|
|
Number of Objects specified
=======>
39
|
|
Number of Object States specified
=======>
0
|
|
Number of Conditional Rules specified
=======>
25
|
|
Number of Stereotypes defined
=======>
2
|
Continuation of Design Measurement
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
|
|
R E L A T I O N A L Q U A N T I T Y M E T R I C S
|
|
|
|
Number of Design Relationships
=======>
299
|
|
Number of Use Case Relations
=======>
48
|
|
Number of Class Associations
=======>
41
|
|
Number of Class Generalizations
=======>
0
|
|
Number of Class Hierarchy Levels
=======>
1
|
|
Number of Interactions/Collaborations
=======>
243
|
|
Number of Methods referenced
=======>
36
|
|
Number of Activity Control Flows
=======>
0
|
|
Number of State Transitions
=======>
0
|
|
Number of required Test Cases
=======>
359
|
|
|
|
D E S I G N
S I Z E
M E T R I C S
|
|
|
|
Number of Data-Points
=======>
741
|
|
Number of Object Points
=======>
898
|
|
Number of Function Points
=======>
528
|
|
Number of Use-Case Points
=======>
482
|
|
Number of Test Points
=======>
383
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Continuation of Design Metric Report
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
S O F A U D I T
D E S I G N
M E T R I C
R E P O R T
|
|
|
|
LANGUAGE: UML
DATE: 11.07.09
|
|
MODULE: SPIKE
PAGE:
2
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
D E S I G N
C O M P L E X I T Y
M E T R I C S
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
CLASS INTERACTION COMPLEXITY
=======>
0.953
|
|
CLASS HIERARCHICAL COMPLEXITY
=======>
0.166
|
|
CLASS DATA COMPLEXITY
=======>
0.633
|
|
CLASS FUNCTIONAL COMPLEXITY
=======>
0.411
|
|
STATE COMPLEXITY
=======>
0.692
|
|
STATE TRANSITION COMPLEXITY
=======>
0.500
|
|
ACTIVITY COMPLEXITY
=======>
0.500
|
|
USECASE COMPLEXITY
=======>
0.562
|
|
ACTOR INTERACTION COMPLEXITY
=======>
0.238
|
|
OVERALL DESIGN COMPLEXITY
=======>
0.418
|
|
|
|
AVERAGE DESIGN COMPLEXITY
=======>
0.507
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
D E S I G N
Q U A L I T Y
M E T R I C S
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
CLASS COUPLING
=======>
0.443
|
|
CLASS COHESION
=======>
0.323
|
|
DESIGN MODULARITY
=======>
0.705
|
|
DESIGN PORTABILITY
=======>
0.347
|
|
DESIGN REUSABILITY
=======>
0.161
|
|
DESIGN TESTABILITY
=======>
0.534
|
|
DESIGN CONFORMANCE
=======>
0.773
|
|
DESIGN COMPLETENESS
=======>
0.250
|
|
DESIGN CONSISTENCY
=======>
0.563
|
|
DESIGN COMPLIANCE
=======>
0.954
|
|
|
|
AVERAGE DESIGN QUALITY
=======>
0.505
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Design Model Analysis
Demonstration
UML-Modellmessung
mit dem Tool UMLAudit
Internal Code Quality Attributes
Modularity
Flexibility
Portability
Portability
Code
Conformity
Convertibility
Maintainability
Testability
Code Quality Metrics
Code Coupling = : (Nr_Modules / Nr_Module_Interactions)
Code Cohesion = : 1 - ( Nr_Data_Declares / Nr_Methods)
Code Modularity = : Coupling * Cohesion * ( average_Mod_Size / Soll_Mod_Size)
Code Reusability = : Nr_reusable_Modules / Nr_Modules
Code Convertibility = : Nr_convertible_Statements / Nr_Statements
Code Flexibilty = : 1 – (Nr_Constants / Nr_Data_Used)
Code Testability = :
*
*
(Nr_Entry_Points / Nr_Functions)
(Nr_Entry_Points / Nr_Parameters)
(Nr_Branches / Nr_Statements)
Code Quality Visualization
Measurement of COBOL Code Quality
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
C O M P L E X I T Y
M E T R I C S
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
DATA COMPLEXITY (Chapin Metric)
=======> 0.235
|
|
DATA FLOW COMPLEXITY (Elshof Metric)
=======> 0.707
|
|
DATA ACCESS COMPLEXITY (Card Metric)
=======> 0.924
|
|
INTERFACE COMPLEXITY (Henry Metric)
=======> 0.608
|
|
CONTROL FLOW COMPLEXITY (McCabe Metric) =======> 0.611
|
|
DECISIONAL COMPLEXITY (McClure Metric)
=======> 0.481
|
|
BRANCHING COMPLEXITY (Sneed Metric)
=======> 0.796
|
|
LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY (Halstead Metric)
=======> 0.156
|
|
|
|
AVERAGE PROGRAM COMPLEXITY
=======> 0.564
|
|
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
Q U A L I T Y
M E T R I C S
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
DEGREE OF MODULARITY
=======> 0.511
|
|
DEGREE OF PORTABILITY
=======> 0.155
|
|
DEGREE OF TESTABILITY
=======> 0.582
|
|
DEGREE OF REUSABILITY
=======> 0.214
|
|
DEGREE OF CONVERTIBILITY
=======> 0.466
|
|
DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY
=======> 0.567
|
|
DEGREE OF CONFORMITY
=======> 0.279
|
|
DEGREE OF MAINTAINABILITY
=======> 0.433
|
|
|
|
AVERAGE PROGRAM QUALITY
=======> 0.400
|
|
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Measurement of Java Code Quality
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
DATA COMPLEXITY (Chapin Metric)
=======> 0.471
|
|
DATA FLOW COMPLEXITY (Elshof Metric)
=======> 0.857
|
|
DATA ACCESS COMPLEXITY (Card Metric)
=======> 0.333
|
|
INTERFACE COMPLEXITY (Henry Metric)
=======> 0.507
|
|
CONTROL FLOW COMPLEXITY (McCabe Metric) =======> 0.287
|
|
DECISIONAL COMPLEXITY (McClure Metric)
=======> 0.173
|
|
BRANCHING COMPLEXITY (Sneed Metric)
=======> 0.458
|
|
LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY (Halstead Metric)
=======> 0.499
|
|
|
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE PROGRAM COMPLEXITY
=======> 0.448
|
|
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
Q U A L I T Y
M E T R I C S
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
DEGREE OF MODULARITY
=======> 0.921
|
|
DEGREE OF PORTABILITY
=======> 0.880
|
|
DEGREE OF TESTABILITY
=======> 0.798
|
|
DEGREE OF REUSABILITY
=======> 0.960
|
|
DEGREE OF CONVERTIBILITY
=======> 0.914
|
|
DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY
=======> 0.444
|
|
DEGREE OF CONFORMITY
=======> 0.339
|
|
DEGREE OF MAINTAINABILITY
=======> 0.639
|
|
|
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE PROGRAM QUALITY
=======> 0.736
|
|
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Java Code Analysis
Demonstration
Codemessung
mit dem Tool JavAudit
Test Quality Attributes
Repeatability
Conformity
Test
Reliability
Coverage
Portability
Effectiveness
Test Quality Metrics
Test Case Effectiveness
Test Case Repeatability
Test Case Conformity
=
=
=
Test case Completeness
=
Requirements Coverage
=
1 – (test cases / impacted functions)
(automated test cases / test cases )
( formally correct test attributes /
total test case attributes )
( Ist_Testfälle /Soll_Testfälle)
_Getestete Anforderungen_
Spezifizierte Anforderungen
Design Coverage
=
__Getestete Modellelemente__
Alle Modelelemente
 Code Coverage
= Getestete Anweisungen, bzw. Zweige
Anweisungen, bzw. Zweige
Test Case Coverage
= Ausgeführte Testfälle
Spezifizierte Testfälle
Test Reliability = Gewichtete Fehlermeldungen aus dem Testbetrieb
Summe aller gewichteten Fehlermeldungen
Test Effectiveness
=
1 - Gewichtete Fehler x Überdeckung
ausgeführte Testfälle
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
|
|
T E S T
M E T R I C R E P O R T
|
| PRODUCT: TESTPROD
|
| SYSTEM : TESTSYS
|
| DATE:
16.12.06
PAGE: 0001
|
| Metric Definition
Metric Type
Metric Value |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Number of Test Cases specified
Absolute Count
167
|
| Number of Test Cases executed
Absolute Count
122
|
| Number of Code Modules
Absolute Count
19
|
| Number of Code Statements
Absolute Count
3551
|
| Number of Methods&Procedures coded
Absolute Count
201
|
| Number of Methods&Procedures tested Absolute Count
172
|
|
|
| Number of Defects predicted
Absolute Count
20
|
| Number of Defects in total
Absolute Count
14
|
| Number of Critical Defects (8)
Absolute Count
0
|
| Number of Severe Defects (4)
Absolute Count
2
|
| Number of Major Defects (2)
Absolute Count
3
|
| Number of Medium Defects (1)
Absolute Count
5
|
| Number of Minor Defects (0.5)
Absolute Count
4
|
| Number of Weighted Defects
Weighted Count
21
|
|
|
| Defect Density Rate
Relational Scale
0.0039
|
| Weighted Defect Density Rate
Relational Scale
0.0059
|
| Case Coverage Rate
Relational Scale
0.730
|
| Code Coverage Rate
Relational Scale
0.855
|
| Test Coverage Rate
Relational Scale
0.624
|
| Defect Coverage Rate
Relational Scale
0.700
|
| Remaining Error Probability
Relational Scale
0.002
|
| Weighted Error Probability
Relational Scale
0.003
|
| System Trust Coefficient
Relational Scale
0.878
|
| Test Effectiveness Coefficient
Relational Scale
0.795
|
|
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Test Analysis
Demonstration
Testmessung
mit dem Tool TestDoc