Finding Faults: Manual Testing vs. Random+ Testing vs. User Reports

Abstract

The usual way to compare testing strategies, whether theoretically or empirically, is to compare the number of faults they detect. To ascertain definitely that a testing strategy is better than another, this is a rather coarse criterion: shouldn't the nature of faults matter as well as their number? The empirical study reported here confirms this conjecture. An analysis of faults detected in Eiffel libraries through three different techniques-random tests, manual tests, and user incident reports-shows that each is good at uncovering significantly different kinds of faults. None of the techniques subsumes any of the others, but each brings distinct contributions.