Researcher profile

Stephan Kremer

Stephan Kremer contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
1topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2014arXiv

Focusing Testing by Using Inspection and Product Metrics

A well-known approach for identifying defect-prone parts of software in order to focus testing is to use different kinds of product metrics such as size or complexity. Although this approach has been evaluated in many contexts, the question remains if there are further opportunities to improve test focusing. One idea is to identify other types of information that may indicate the location of defect-prone software parts. Data from software inspections, in particular, appear to be promising. This kind of data might already lead to software parts that have inherent difficulties or programming challenges, and in consequence might be defect-prone. This article first explains how inspection and product metrics can be used to focus testing activities. Second, we compare selected product and inspection metrics commonly used to predict defect-prone parts (e.g., size and complexity metrics, inspection defect content metrics, and defect density metrics). Based on initial experience from two case studies performed in different environments, the suitability of different metrics for predicting defect-prone parts is illustrated. The studies revealed that inspection defect data seems to be a suitable predictor, and a combination of certain inspection and product metrics led to the best prioritizations in our contexts. In addition, qualitative experience is presented, which substantiates the expected benefit of using inspection results to optimize testing.

preprint2013arXiv

Guiding Testing Activities by Predicting Defect-prone Parts Using Product and Inspection Metrics

Product metrics, such as size or complexity, are often used to identify defect-prone parts or to focus quality assurance activities. In contrast, quality information that is available early, such as information provided by inspections, is usually not used. Currently, only little experience is documented in the literature on whether data from early defect detection activities can support the identification of defect-prone parts later in the development process. This article compares selected product and inspection metrics commonly used to predict defect-prone parts. Based on initial experience from two case studies performed in different environments, the suitability of different metrics for predicting defect-prone parts is illustrated. These studies revealed that inspection defect data seems to be a suitable predictor, and a combination of certain inspection and product metrics led to the best prioritizations in our contexts.