First, review overview
Testing process in the usual sense, is a process of implementation of the tested software. But as the concept of software testing technology industry as more and more mature age, test the system under test is not performed, the "static testing" began to receive more attention.
One of the best practices is an important assessment carried out in the form of static testing, but also "test early intervention" principle.
In the project review types may be used in common are:
- Informal assessment (partner check, cross-check each other Cross Check)
- 走查（Walk-through）
- Technical Review (Technical Review)
- Review (Inspection)
- Special checking (Ad-hoc Review)
- Audit (Audit)
- Management Review (Management Review)
From the object is reviewed, the needs assessment, design review, review of the use cases , etc., are subject test team should be involved in the review. Furthermore, all the phases of the outputs, and carry out the relevant testing, and the test team have the ability to review, should actively participate. Test managers should be reviewed regarded as an important part of the testing activities.
Accreditation is a means to read, analyze and discuss the problems found activities. Compared with the test execution of said dynamic test that is the usual sense, the assessment can be applied to help the team detected from stage further upstream, thereby efficiently identify and solve problems. From this perspective, but also a review of preventive measures . For example, if you find and solve the needs of errors in the needs assessment phase, then the issue may be brought to prevent the subsequent development stage, is a very valuable activity on cost and return on investment.
The parties involved in the assessment, can be divided into:
- Author
- judge
- coordinator
- host
- recorder
Where the assessor responsible for making specific assessment coordinator is responsible for coordinating the views of all parties.
Second, the review process
Prior to summarize specific standard processes reviewed, first discuss the issue of accreditation may occur.
Many projects will also review the work of the organization, but often not very intuitive effect, the reason problem may occur in the following areas:
- Question 1: There is not enough preparation
Interim review meeting was held, the participants did not fully understand and prepare for the review content and objects. The result is a review meeting turns into a discussion meeting, it has little effect or even zero.
- Question 2: deviation from the target review
Since the assessment project is not clear, the effect may be reached less than ideal. For example, reviewers may be too concern about document formats and so on; and such a review meetings often easily evolve into a technical discussion and decision-making meeting, even Tucao Assembly.
- Question 3: There is no good issue tracking
Review found the problem, but no follow-up process to track and solve problems, leading to the assessment meaningless.
- Question 4: review has not been included in the program
Review not included in the plan, leading to the problem it is to expand all the assessment will need to take extra time. This problem belongs to the plan, once the project at the time of an emergency, the assessment will likely make way for other tasks.
- Question 5: Review inadequate participation
Is a common phenomenon, especially the participants reviewed the developer, often in a negative attitude towards the assessment, the level of participation is not high.
To avoid these problems, then a formal review process, need to be clearly defined in the following stages of work:
- 1. Plan
- 2. Start
- 3. Personal Review
- 4. Review Meeting
- 5. Rework
- 6. Issue Tracking
plan
Formal review process needs the support of a set, we need to plan ahead. Plans need clear contents include: process assessment using the target review time venue arrangements, participants, role allocation, for more formal review may also need to define the entry and exit criteria (ie start, end condition) .
start up
Improve the review process should include the start-up phase, the significance of this stage is to make the measured object (such as requirements documents) distribution in place, and a clear objective review, where possible, the moderator should answer questions of the participants.
Personal Review
Before the start of the formal meeting, participants need to be left to time, review documents in advance to prepare for the review meeting, and labeling and induction may find their own flaws, problems and recommendations;
judge meeting
Review meetings chaired by the organizers to review all the issues identified, questions are discussed, the focus of the discussion of the issue should be settled in determining the extent and the impact of the judge, rather than a solution to the problem. It should work to solve the problem after the meeting.
Meeting the target should be to obtain the list of issues, and the problems of those responsible, level and so on.
Rework stage
In the review meeting, we come to the list of issues and summary of relevant information, this is far from the end of the review. Now that you know the problem, then the next must work to solve these problems, this is the meaning rework phase. Owners need within a preset period of time, complete solution to the problem, repair.
The tracking phase
Finally, we need to track fix the problem and determine the assessment work has reached the end of the standard.
If you have more concerns for the subject being evaluated, twice or several times after rework review is possible.
Finally, attach a use-case assessment template for reference:
link: https://pan.baidu.com/s/1gcDSli4thx9cwLbsijKqHw
extraction code: 2ri2