Introduction

Software testing reviews are an important part of the software development and testing process. Reviews provide a way to evaluate software quality and uncover defects before the software is released. Reviews can be conducted in different ways, from structured inspection meetings to informal reviews. 

There are several main types of software testing reviews:

Inspections

Inspections are led by a trained moderator and follow a structured process for examining a software artifact. They involve a carefully selected team stepping through the work product in detail while actively searching for defects.

Inspections typically follow these steps:

• Planning: The moderator selects the inspection team, sets the schedule, and distributes materials in advance.

• Overview: The author provides background on the work product to inspect.

• Preparation: The inspection team reviews the materials individually before the meeting.

• Inspection Meeting: Led by the moderator, the team works through the product systematically while recording issues. Authors may take notes but not comment during this phase.

• Rework: The author updates the work product based on the inspection findings.

• Follow-up: The moderator verifies the rework addressed the findings adequately. The process repeats if needed until the work product meets the exit criteria.

Inspections are considered one of the most formal and stringent review techniques. When performed correctly, inspections typically yield a higher defect detection rate than less formal approaches. The process requires significant resources and time commitment but can result in dramatically higher-quality software.

Walkthroughs

Walkthroughs are reviews led by the author of the document or code being reviewed. They are informal and focus on learning, education, and sharing knowledge.

The author explains their work and walks through it with reviewers, who can ask questions, seek clarification, and make suggestions. Walkthroughs allow reviewers to gain familiarity with the material and the author to receive feedback.

Unlike formal inspections, walkthroughs do not follow a rigid process and are more flexible. There are no extensive documents filled out, and there are no formal entry or exit criteria. The focus is on having an open discussion to share knowledge and learn.

Walkthroughs work well in the early stages of development when the goal is to educate others on what was built. They allow issues to be identified early through peer discussion. Participants can brainstorm improvements together in a collaborative manner.

Walkthroughs tend to be more lightweight than other review techniques. However, they are quite useful for rapidly sharing knowledge among team members. The informal nature creates an environment where people feel comfortable asking questions and engaging in productive discussions.

Technical Reviews

Technical reviews, also known as peer reviews, are a more formal type of software testing where a team will examine the code, design, functionality, or documentation of the software. Technical reviews are led by a trained moderator or review leader. Unlike informal reviews, technical reviews follow a structured process with defined roles and steps.

The main focus of a technical review is to identify defects in the software. The review team carefully examines the materials, looks for problems, and raises any issues or questions. Common issues that may be identified include bugs, missing requirements, logical flaws, performance problems, security vulnerabilities, unclear documentation, and violations of coding standards.

Technical reviews can be done on software during any stage of development, although they are commonly used to assess requirements specifications and design documents early on or to evaluate source code later in the process. The review itself does not remove defects, but it does identify areas for improvement. Issues raised during the review are logged as defects to be addressed by the software development team.

Some common types of technical reviews include design reviews, code reviews, architecture reviews, documentation reviews, and test plan reviews. Technical reviews require planning, trained moderators, preparation by the review team, and active participation during the review. Overall, technical reviews are a valuable way to identify defects efficiently through peer examination.

Audits

Audits are formal reviews to assess process compliance and product quality. Audits examine the software development process, procedures, and documentation to ensure they adhere to predefined standards and regulations.

Audits are often conducted by external reviewers or quality teams within an organization. The goal is to identify gaps, non-compliance, and areas for improvement. Audits focus on the overall development lifecycle rather than on a specific work product.

Some examples of audits include:

Compliance audits to ensure the software meets legal, regulatory, or security requirements process audits to assess if project management, coding, testing, and release follow defined procedures audits to evaluate software quality, functionality, reliability, and other attributes

The audit team will thoroughly examine documents, code, tests, issues, risks, metrics, and other artifacts. Interviews with the team are conducted to validate the processes being followed. Any non-compliance or deviations are documented as findings in an audit report.

The development team must then respond to each audit finding with a proposed corrective action and implementation plan. Process improvements are identified to close any gaps surfaced by the audit. Successful audits lead to higher-quality software delivered with reduced risk and greater compliance.

Management Reviews

Management reviews provide an overall assessment of the project's status and direction by evaluating documents, schedules, and plans. They ensure the project aligns with broader business objectives.

Management reviews focus on:

assessing the project's overall status and progress. This looks at whether the project is on track according to the plan and schedule.

evaluating project risks and issues. Management reviews help identify potential risks and determine if issues need to be addressed.

reviewing project plans and goals. This ensures the project's direction continues to meet the intended business needs and objectives.

aligning the project with the organization's strategic priorities. Management verifies that the project remains relevant and beneficial to the organization.

assigning needed resources and support. Management can coordinate finances, staffing, equipment, and other resources.

Resolving cross-project dependencies and constraints. Issues can arise between interlinked projects that management can help mitigate.

assessing product quality and user satisfaction. Management reviews evaluate if intended stakeholders are satisfied with deliverables.

identifying process improvements. Management might find ways to optimize processes and workflows.

Management reviews provide critical oversight across multiple projects within an organization. They give executives visibility into key initiatives. Reviews also facilitate governance, accountability, and course correction if needed. Conducting regular management reviews helps ensure projects succeed in delivering business value.

Informal Reviews

Informal reviews are ad-hoc reviews that have no set process or procedure. They are often impromptu discussions that provide quick feedback on requirements, designs, code, or other work products.

Informal reviews can take place whenever needed, such as when a developer needs feedback on a particular section of code they are working on. There is no formal scheduling or participant selection process. Typically, it involves two or three developers or other team members discussing the item informally.

The main advantages of informal reviews are that they can happen quickly and provide rapid feedback without a lot of process overhead. They are lightweight and do not require extensive preparation, scheduling, or documentation.

The downside is that informal reviews may miss issues that would have been caught in a more rigorous and structured review process. There are no defined entry or exit criteria, roles, or procedures. Issues can slip through the cracks because there is no systematic inspection of the work product.

In summary, informal reviews provide useful but minimal validation of work. They complement but don't replace the need for more formal and rigorous review techniques. Informal reviews work best for rapid feedback on small changes or limited portions of a product.

Pair Programming

Pair programming involves two software developers working together at one workstation. One programmer acts as the driver, writing the code, while the other programmer acts as the observer, reviewing the code as it is typed. The two programmers switch roles frequently.

Pair programming enables real-time code reviews as the code is being written. With two sets of eyes on the code, defects can be identified and corrected earlier. The continuous review helps produce higher-quality code that follows best practices and standards.

Pair programming also facilitates knowledge sharing between programmers. More experienced developers can share expertise and coach newer programmers. Programmers learn from each other and improve their skills.

The interactive nature of pair programming provides social pressure to stay focused and motivated. Taking breaks or getting distracted becomes more difficult when you're pairing with someone else. This can lead to greater productivity and progress.

Overall, pair programming combines software development and code review into one seamless process. The instant feedback loops result in code with fewer defects and faults. Pair programming requires some adjustments but can be highly beneficial for code quality and team collaboration.

Tool-Based Reviews

Tool-based reviews utilize software tools to analyze the code or product to identify defects. These automated analysis tools can provide valuable insights that complement human inspection. Some examples of tool-based analysis include:

static analysis tools that scan code to detect bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, etc. Popular static tools include Coverity, Fortify, SonarQube, etc.

automated test case generation tools that can create input test data to achieve high code coverage. Tools like Parasoft Jtest and VectorCAST can generate test cases for scenarios that may be missed in manual testing.

web accessibility validators that check for compliance with accessibility standards like WCAG. Some examples are Achecker, WAVE, etc.

load testing tools that simulate expected user load on the system to uncover performance bottlenecks under load. Popular load-testing tools are JMeter, LoadRunner, NeoLoad, etc.

security scanners that identify security vulnerabilities in code, networks, infrastructure, etc. OWASP Zap and Netsparker are commonly used dynamic security scanners.

The key benefit of tool-based analysis is achieving wide test coverage and finding defects that may not be detected through manual testing alone. While human inspection remains essential, combining it with automated analysis provides a powerful approach to delivering high quality.