Knowledge on How to Predict The Accurate Number of Passes to Achieve The Desired Quality
If you need an accurate assessment of how many test cycles should be passed to ensure the sufficient quality of the product to be delivered or deployed, you can use one of the defect-removal models. The core metric-based model for defect correction that is founded on historical information from previous projects is discussed in the “SMM in Practice” written by Pankoj Jalote. If the company has a good defect tracking database and techniques for estimating the total number of defects in the system, then you can rely on Jalote’s basic model for eliminating defects.
In most cases, release dates are more important than testing and correcting each last error at the end of the project. This is one of the advantages of the Iterative development life cycle. To predict the number of defects found and corrected in the project, you do not need to use all the data available in the database, although this may be required for a more accurate forecast.
Be aware that installation testing services are used to make sure that the software is setup correctly and with all the necessary components. The quality assurance work is aimed at checking whether the product works as intended after installation.
Speaking about increments and the supply of certain parts of functionality, it is argued that, to some extent, such concerns may drive during development of particular tests. This is also often a factor for the execution of tests. If a project is being run using a Waterfall development life cycle model and you are responsible only for system testing, then one of the entrance criteria for your testing process may well be that you obtain a feature-complete version of the product before you start. In this case, all functionality must be implemented in the system before testing begins.
However, in the Iterative, Spiral, Extreme programming, and other models wherein new components and functions appear throughout the testing phase, the cost estimates must take into account the sequence in which certain components arrive. This is always true for integration testing, which depends on the availability of various interacting and communicating components. In one of the projects the design team together testing group strived to determine the sequence of six core backbones for integration testing, starting with several pieces of the system and adding other pieces when they became available, the last of which was the whole system. These pieces were added following a risk-driven order grounded on which problems would be most threatening or most likely to the viability of the architecture of the system. This affected not only costs estimates and project schedule but also the system’s logic and its coverage.