to the SUT.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Functional suitability}\\
- As descibed in Section~\ref{sec:risks} the SUT is core functioanlity of the
- networking capable system. Because many other systems running on the system
- could rely on it it is very important that the SUT is functionaly suitable.
- Therefore all three subcharacteristics of Functional Suitability
- (\textit{Functional completeness, Functional correctness, Functional
- appropriateness}) are of vital importance. As was previously mentioned in
- Section~\ref{sec:risks} extra emphasis should be placed on testing
- \emph{Functional Correctness} as recovery from Failures in
+ As described in Section~\ref{sec:risks} the SUT is core functionality of
+ the networking capable system. Because many other systems running on the
+ system could rely on it it is very important that the SUT is functionality
+ suitable. Therefore all three sub characteristics of Functional
+ Suitability (\textit{Functional completeness, Functional correctness,
+ Functional appropriateness}) are of vital importance. As was previously
+ mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:risks} extra emphasis should be placed on
+ testing \emph{Functional Correctness} as recovery from Failures in
computer-to-computer systems is problematic.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Quality in use}
+
+\subsection{Levels and types of testing} \label{levels}
+
+The client will deliver a product for certification. This means our team will only conduct acceptance testing and assume that the client who requested certification has conducted unit, module and integration testing. We will only be conducting black-box testing and the client is not required to handover any source-code. Initially we will conduct several basic test cases based on experience acquired from previous certification requests (error guessing). If the product fails these basic tests we reject it and seize all further activities. If the product is not rejected we will proceed with more thorough testing. For each test we produce a test report. If any of the test cases fail the product is still rejected but in order to deliver usable feedback to the client we will still produce a test report.
+
+\subsection{Test generation}
+
+The basic tests mentioned in section \ref{levels} are conducted using a checklist. If any of the checks fail we immediately reject the product.
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item Is the product complete?
+ \item Does the product come with a manual or quick start guide?
+ \item Is it possible to get the product in a usable state?
+ \item Can we use the product to initiate a connection in a corruption free environment?
+ \item ....
+\end{enumerate}
+
+For the remaining tests we first use equivalence partitioning to reduce the overall number of test cases.
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item Valid requests:
+ \begin{enumerate}
+ \item Single request.
+ \item Multiple requests.
+ \end{enumerate}
+ \item Invalid requests:
+ \begin{enumerate}
+ \item Single request.
+ \item Multiple requests.
+ \end{enumerate}
+\end{enumerate}
+
+For these requests we can introduce more cases using equivalence partitioning for the different packets that are sent during one request.
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item Packets received in order.
+ \item Packets received out of order.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+For each individual packet we can specify the follow equivalent classes.
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item Valid packet.
+ \item Corrupted packet.
+ \item Missing packets.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+We will test all possible combinations of requests/packet order/packet content. For each combination we will use boundary value analysis to reduce the total number of test cases. Boundary values are constructed using the following parameters:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item Checksum: valid/invalid
+ \item Header: valid/invalid
+ \item Payload: valid/invalid
+ \item ...
+\end{enumerate}
\ No newline at end of file
repositories / tt2015.git / blobdiff