Mixing dynamic and static code reviews has become a popular way to boost how well we test software. Back in the 2000s, software testers mostly stuck to black-box testing, which meant they didn’t dive into the nitty-gritty of how things worked inside. This left a lot of holes, like miscommunication, missed bugs, and not giving testing the attention it deserved. To fix this, the idea of doing both dynamic and static code reviews really took off. While development teams check the code for quality with static reviews, getting testers involved in looking over the source code helps everyone understand the system better and links testing with development more effectively.
In this case, it becomes necessary to explore the reasons behind the symbiotic relationship between testing and code review, shedding light on their multifaceted benefits:
- To provide thorough test coverage, learn the system from both design and implementation perspectives.
- Assist in identifying dead code pathways (paths that could never be reached) from the perspective of the end user; these should be eliminated. To improve total test traceability while making the code more streamlined and maintainable, these are taken from the source code.
- Make architectural suggestions for performance enhancements.
- Examine an internal code level for security flaws.
- Keep an eye out for storage optimizations, particularly in relation to database implementations and caching strategies.
- Conduct root cause analysis on defects to some level to reduce the amount of time the product team must spend debugging and repairing errors; this also increases the general defect validity rates.
- An impartial evaluation of the source code was conducted by an entire group that was not directly involved in the coding process.
- When done in the greatest advantage of both teams rather than viewing it as a fault-finding exercise, such reviews also enhance the developer-tester relationship and go a long way in creating a sense of respect for each other in addition to the above-mentioned concrete benefits.
- Enhance maintainability and readability. Regular code reviews involving testers help ensure that the code remains readable and maintainable. By bringing in a fresh perspective, testers can suggest refactoring opportunities, reducing technical debt and making future testing and debugging more efficient.
- Improve test automation strategies. Reviewing code with a testing mindset allows teams to identify areas where automation can be effectively applied. This helps in designing test scripts that align with the system’s architecture, ensuring better long-term test coverage and reliability.
At a conceptual level, there is consensus that it is beneficial to have the software testing company handle static code reviews but, when it comes to dynamic testing initiatives, when they test the system in its implementation mode, they represent the user. If these 2 activities are to be prioritized, then the dynamic test efforts should come first because they are their primary duty, whilst the traditional code reviews are supplementary because they aid in their understanding of the system and increase test coverage. Therefore, from a scheduling perspective, the dynamic test efforts must come before the static code reviews. This is from the correct sequence of the jobs that need to be completed, not merely for task prioritization.
Optimizing Testing Strategies for Robust System Quality
As defenders of the end user, it is crucial for the team conducting the tests to test the system initially from a black box perspective without having access to system internals at the program level. If they do so, they risk becoming biased or influenced by what to anticipate in the subsequent sequence of operations, areas where defects may exist, which defeats the purpose of black box testing. After a brief period of black box work, the test team should switch to dynamic white box testing while the program is running so they may move on to the system level details, testing for web services, databases, APIs, etc.
Another team of testers is working on black box testing concurrently to provide comprehensive coverage. However, when the testing process moves from black box to white box dynamic to white box static, the tester has the ability to gradually advance in the level of system comprehension but, more crucially, is able to:
- Don’t let your knowledge of the system’s internal workings influence you when testing the system as an advocate for end users.
- Since the code coverage obtained from the earlier test attempts would have provided a glimpse into modules that require greater testing depth, it is possible to diagnose the system for extra test coverage in addition to simply reviewing the source code.
- Develop a comprehensive testing strategy that encompasses both functional and non-functional aspects of the system. This involves creating a well-structured test plan that outlines various testing scenarios, user interactions, edge cases, and performance benchmarks.
Additionally, prioritize exploratory testing, where the tester takes a more creative and unscripted approach to uncover hidden issues that might not be covered by the scripted test cases. This step encourages thinking outside the box and mimicking real-world usage, thus providing valuable insights into the system’s behavior.
While designing test cases, incorporate both positive and negative test scenarios to validate correct functionality and error-handling mechanisms. By simulating various scenarios, you can identify potential vulnerabilities, inconsistencies, and usability problems that might go unnoticed during regular usage.
Some more thoughts
The test team’s productivity and efficiency would be maximized, and more importantly, they would be able to create a product of exceptional quality if they could concentrate up front on prioritizing their test efforts in a similar way, exposed to the product they are testing along with time and cost constraints.
The process may initially seem difficult to implement, but after a few milestones, it will begin to flow smoothly, the team will have improved its communication, and the overall benefits to the product quality, team productivity, and morale will make this effort worthwhile of the time and money invested. Investing in your team’s future is worth the cost, as opposed to immediate gain.
