Review Types in Software Testing

General Considerations:

  • All review types contribute to defect detection; selection depends on project needs, available resources, product type, risks, business domain, and company culture.
  • A single work product may undergo multiple review types, and the order may vary.

Informal Review (e.g., buddy check, pairing, pair review):

  • Main purpose: Detect potential defects.
  • Additional purposes: Generate new ideas, quickly solve minor problems.
  • Informal, not based on a formal process.
  • May not involve a review meeting.
  • Performable by a colleague (buddy check) or multiple people.
  • Results may be documented.
  • Varies in usefulness depending on reviewers.
  • Use of checklists is optional.
  • Common in Agile development.

Walkthrough:

  • Main purposes: Find defects, improve the software product, consider alternative implementations, evaluate conformance.
  • Additional purposes: Exchange ideas, training, achieve consensus.
  • Individual preparation optional.
  • Review meeting led by the author.
  • Scribe is mandatory.
  • Use of checklists is optional.
  • May take forms like scenarios, dry runs, or simulations.
  • Potential defect logs and review reports are produced.
  • Varies from informal to formal.

Technical Review:

  • Main purposes: Gain consensus, detect potential defects.
  • Additional purposes: Evaluate quality, build confidence, generate ideas, motivate authors.
  • Reviewers are technical peers and experts.
  • Individual preparation is required.
  • Optional review meeting, ideally led by a trained facilitator.
  • Scribe is mandatory (not the author).
  • Use of checklists is optional.
  • Potential defect logs and review reports are produced.

Inspection:

  • Main purposes: Detect defects, evaluate quality, build confidence, prevent future defects.
  • Additional purposes: Motivate authors, improve the development process, achieve consensus.
  • Follows a defined process with formal documented outputs.
  • Uses defined roles (mandatory), may include a dedicated reader.
  • Individual preparation is required.
  • Reviewers are peers or relevant experts.
  • Specified entry and exit criteria are used.
  • Scribe is mandatory.
  • Review meeting led by a trained facilitator (not the author).
  • Author cannot act as the review leader, reader, or scribe.
  • Potential defect logs and review report are produced.
  • Metrics collected for process improvement, including the inspection process.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *