Ideally, this testing is being done early in the development stream, but it may not be.
#Get an automated framework for generating cpu stress test software#
Software security testing looks to try to root out security-related vulnerabilities within software. This brings us to the first kind of testing that you may be doing. As well as the cost of any shipping, including hosting it on a web site where it can be downloaded. However, there is still a lot of cost involved in the people who have to be involved in the redevelopment, retesting, and redeployment. These costs are coming down a little, since it's not like CDs have to be shipped like they may have a decade or more ago. The reason it's more expensive post-deployment in a traditional software release model where the software is packaged up and has to be sent back to the customer again is because the bug not only has to make it all the way back to the developer, following the same process outlined above, but the package has to be built and redeployed to the customer. A programmer has to get the bug report, validate the bug, identify where the bug actually is in the code, then fix the bug before handing it back to the testing team, where it all has to be tested again. The rationale is that it costs more in testing because of the rework involved. Given that, the best place is to identify bugs during the coding or development stage. The baseline is in the requirements stage, though you wouldn't fix a bug in the requirements, though you could identify bad requirements that could introduce problems. Different sources will provide different multiples for the different stages. Figure 1-2 is a graph showing one estimate of the cost difference between finding a problem in the requirements stage and all the way up to post-deployment/release. It's a long-held maxim that fixing bugs is cheaper the earlier in the process they are identified. Of course, there are no rules as to how that happens or how detailed it is. It's common for software to undergo quality assurance testing.
0 kommentar(er)
