Software Testing Techniques¶
Beizer, B. (1990). Software Testing Techniques.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Compatibility
- Tools from one domain transfer: compatibility matrices (used in software versioning to show which versions work with which platforms) apply to supply-chain management, team composition, and regulatory compliance. Backward-compatibility testing in software (regression testing, version-pair testing) parallels quality-assurance logic in equipment maintenance and drug approval, as Beizer (1990) systematizes in his foundational treatment of software testing techniques.
This sourceVan Nostrand Reinhold. Standard reference on software testing methodology: systematizes regression testing and structural/functional techniques for verifying that interface contracts continue to hold across releases — logic that parallels QA in equipment maintenance and drug approval.
- Tools from one domain transfer: compatibility matrices (used in software versioning to show which versions work with which platforms) apply to supply-chain management, team composition, and regulatory compliance. Backward-compatibility testing in software (regression testing, version-pair testing) parallels quality-assurance logic in equipment maintenance and drug approval, as Beizer (1990) systematizes in his foundational treatment of software testing techniques.
Mechanisms¶
- Regression-Guarded Refinement Cycle
- Its failure mode is that the guard set is only as good as its coverage, and a suite that keeps passing breeds false confidence — the pesticide paradox, where the same checks run over and over gradually lose their power to catch new classes of regression because the artifact adapts to pass them.
This sourceNames the pesticide paradox and explains that repeatedly used test suites wear out and become ineffective against newly remaining classes of defects.
- Its failure mode is that the guard set is only as good as its coverage, and a suite that keeps passing breeds false confidence — the pesticide paradox, where the same checks run over and over gradually lose their power to catch new classes of regression because the artifact adapts to pass them.
- Regression Test for Added Complexity
- Its characteristic weakness is the pesticide paradox: a fixed regression suite catches only the breaks it was written to catch, and as the same tests run unchanged, new layers learn to slip past them into the gaps the suite never covered.
This sourceDescribes Beizer's pesticide paradox: repeatedly running an unchanged test suite eventually stops exposing new defects unless the tests are revised.
- Its characteristic weakness is the pesticide paradox: a fixed regression suite catches only the breaks it was written to catch, and as the same tests run unchanged, new layers learn to slip past them into the gaps the suite never covered.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not confirmed. The DOI recorded for this work did not resolve when it was last checked, so it is shown above but not linked. The citation may still be sound; the recorded identifier is not. Flagged for repair.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 3 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 2 other ways.
- https://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1850328803 ×1
- https://dblp.org/rec/books/daglib/0077983.html ×1
Registry ID ref:36f5da4fd15e · see in the full table