Category Archives: CS-443

Boundary, Equivalence, Edge and Worst Case

I have learned a lot about Boundary Value Testing and Equivalence Class Testing these past few weeks. Equivalence Class testing can be divided into two categories: normal and robust. The best way I can explain this through example. Let’s say you have a favorite shirt, and you lose it. You would have to look for it but where? Under the normal method you would look in normal, or in a way valid, places like under your bed, in your closet or in the dresser. Using the robust way, you would look in those usual spots but also include unusual spots. For example, you would look under your bed but then look under the kitchen table. You are looking in spots where you should find a shirt (valid) but also looking in spots where you should not find a shirt (invalid). Now, in equivalence class testing robust and normal can a part of two other categories: weak and strong. Going back to the shirt example, a weak search would have you looking in a few spots, but a strong one would have you look everywhere. To summarize, a weak normal equivalence class test would have you look in a few usual spots. A strong normal equivalence class test would have you look in a lot of spots. A weak and strong equivalence class test would act similarly to the earlier two, but they would have you look in unusual spots.

Boundary value testing casts a smaller net when it comes to testing. It is similar to equivalence class testing but it does not include weak and strong testing. It does have nominal and robust testing. It also has worst-case testing which is unique to boundary testing. I don’t know much about it, so I looked online.

I used this site: Boundary Value Analysis

Worst-case testing removes the single fault assumption. This means that there are more than one fault causing failures which leads to more tests. It can be robust or normal. It is more comprehensive than boundary testing due to its coverage. While normal boundary testing results in 4n+1 test cases, normal worst case testing results in 5n test cases. Think of worst-case testing as putting a putting a magnifying glass on something. From afar you only see one thing but up close you can see that there is a lot going on. This results in worst case testing being used in situations that require a higher degree of testing.

I have learned a lot in these past few weeks. I have learned about boundary testing and how it differs when it is robust or normal. I have learned about equivalence class testing and how it varies when it is a combination of weak, normal, robust or strong. I have also learned about edge and worst-case testing. This is all very interesting.

From the blog My Journey through Comp Sci by Joanna Presume and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Equivalence Class Testing

Week 7 – 3/7/2025

This week, in my last class we had an activity for Equivalence Class Testing(ECT) under the POGIL activity. For the source of this week, I watched a YouTube video titled “Equivalence Class Testing Explained,” which gives us the essentials about this black-box testing method.

The host of the video defines ECT as a technique for partitioning input data into equivalence classes partitions where inputs are expected to yield similar results. To reduce redundant cases without sacrificing coverage, it is also possible to test one value per class. To demonstrate this reality, the presenter tested a function that takes in integers between 1 and 100. Classes in this example are invalid lower (≤0), invalid upper (≥101), and valid classes (1–100). Boundary value testing, in which values like 0, 1, 100, and 101 are applied to test for common problems in partition boundaries, was also accorded importance in the video.

I chose this video because ECT of the course we took included this topic and I wanted more information about the topic. Reading the course textbook it was difficult to follow. The class activity did make me do this topic, though this clarified it better to me. The video’s visual illustrations and step-by-step discussion clarified the practical application of ECT. The speaker’s observation about maintaining a balance between being thorough and being effective resonated with me, especially after spending hours of writing duplicate test cases for a recent project.

I thought that thorough testing had to test all possible inputs before watching. The video rebutted this by demonstrating how ECT reduces effort without losing effectiveness. I understood that my previous method of testing each edge case individually was not possible. Another fascinating thing was the difference between valid and invalid classes. I had neglected how the system handled wrong data in a previous project, dealing primarily with “correct” inputs. I realize how crucial both testing are for ensuring robustness after watching the demonstration of the video. Henceforth, in the future, I will adopt this approach to my future projects if needed.

My perception regarding testing has changed because of this movie, from a boring activity to a sensible activity. It serves the need of our course directly, i.e., providing efficient, scalable engineering practices. I can create fewer, yet stronger tests with the help of ECT, and that will surely help me as a software programmer. Equivalency class testing is a kit of wiser problem-solving, and I want to keep on practicing it. It’s not theory.

From the blog CS@Worcester – computingDiaries by hndaie and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Combining Testing Methods

The blog post that I chose to write about this week is one that gives an overview of equivalence class and boundary analysis testing. The main reason why you would use these is to reduce the number of tests you run for a program while still testing full functionality and not sacrificing coverage. It does this by sectioning the range of inputs into different equivalency classes. Equivalency classes are groups of inputs that in theory should behave identically when put into the tested function. The blog then shows a helpful diagram showcasing what this looks like plotted on a number line. This way, tests will give better information by only testing the function where problems may arise and will detail the behavior of the function near edge cases better than other methods.

The blog post also details how you can represent the classes as functions themselves for where the inputs would be, for example, true, false, or valid, by defining ranges of values with interval notation. After then going over boundary test cases, the author explains how these two methods can be used together to efficiently test around the limits of the function behavior. The blog concludes with another example plotted on a table that shows how equivalence classes and boundary testing can be combined to use a minimum number of tests while also ensuring that you test the function at its most important parts where the process will change based on inputs.

I selected this blog to help refresh myself for the upcoming test about different testing methods and to reinforce what I had learned in class. I think that one of the more important takeaways from this blog is the emphasis the author puts on combining the two methods not just because they are two different methods but because they strengthen the overall testing procedure, and this will make me think about how new testing methods can be combined to lead to better and more efficient test cases. Demonstrating the testing in terms of models on number lines and as graphs help visualize what is actually happening and why it works, similar to the models taught in class but the added element of real numbers with example values helps demonstrate the importance of this kind of testing and how it can be useful for any kind of real-world situation. As an introductory post to the topic, and in my case a review, it works well but from here I would like to look more into the different combinations of testing methods that can work well together and some that may not as I learn more methods through the rest of the class.

https://www.testbench.com/blog/equivalence-class-partioning-and-limit-value-analysis/

From the blog CS@Worcester – Computer Science Blog by dzona1 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

On Structuring and Managing Test Cases

 In this post, I’ll be discussing a recent article I came across on the TestRail website, which can be found here. The post interested me because it dives deep into the importance of organizing and managing test cases effectively, a topic that we have been covering closely in class. As someone who does a lot of tests in various stages, this article gave me some good notes about how proper test case management can streamline the testing process and reduce the risk of overlooked issues.

One of the key takeaways from the article was the concept of structuring test cases with clear, concise steps and expected outcomes. This was notable because I’ve often seen situations where poorly written test cases lead to confusion or unnecessary delays. The article emphasized that each test case should be easily understandable, even for someone unfamiliar with the project, which makes a lot of sense. Clear test cases not only make the process smoother for current testers, but they also provide better documentation for future test cycles. I’ve personally benefited from this approach, especially when revisiting a project after some time has passed, well-written test cases make it easier to pick up where I left off, and they can even give hints (though these shouldn’t be needed) as to what the code is intending to do, and where some logical boundaries may exist.

The article also discussed the importance of categorizing test cases based on their purpose—whether they’re functional, regression, or exploratory tests. This structure helps ensure that each test type is executed at the appropriate stage and that nothing gets missed. In my experience, this kind of organization is crucial, particularly for large-scale projects where test cases can easily become scattered. I’ve found that when I categorize my tests according to at least some standard, I’m able to prioritize them better and avoid redundant testing, ultimately saving time and effort. It’s a simple but effective way to maintain focus on what really matters. My personal default is to follow the code chronologically / in the order of execution, as that is what feels most natural to me.

Another point I appreciated was the article’s advice on using test management tools, like TestRail itself, to keep track of test cases, execution results, and bugs. Granted, they are going to try to sell their own software, but it is still notable. Managing test cases manually in a spreadsheet or document can quickly become cumbersome, especially as projects grow, and using a product or software to handle this for you can be very beneficial.

Overall, this article reaffirmed the importance of a well-organized approach to test case management. As I continue testing processes and software, I’ll be more mindful of how I structure, categorize, and track my test cases, ensuring that testing is as efficient and effective as possible.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

J UNIT 5 TESTING

Recently, I dove into unit testing with JUnit 5 as part of my software development journey. Unit testing helps ensure that individual parts of a program work correctly by writing small, focused tests. JUnit 5 is the framework that is used to write these tests for Java applications, and it makes the process simple and efficient.

The first things first, JUnit 5 uses something called annotations to define test methods. The most important one is @Test, which marks a method as a test case. These methods test small units of code, like individual methods in a class, to make sure they return the expected results.

Here’s a simple example of a test method I wrote to check the area of a rectangle:

import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals;

@Test
void testRectangleArea() {
Rectangle r1 = new Rectangle(2, 3);
int area = r1.getArea();
assertEquals(6, area); // Checking if the area is correct
}

In this case try and write these small test cases to check specific outputs, and if something doesn’t match what you expect, JUnit will let you know right away.

The Structure of a Test Case

There are three simple steps you can follow for each test case:

Assert: Compare the result with what you expect using something called an “assertion.

Arrange: Set up the objects or data you are testing.

Act: Call the method you want to test.

For example, here is another test to check if a rectangle is a square:

@Test
void testRectangleNotSquare() {
Rectangle r1 = new Rectangle(2, 3);
boolean isSquare = r1.isSquare();
assertFalse(isSquare); // Checking if it’s not a square
}

In this case, using assertFalse helps to confirm that the rectangle is not a square.

Common JUnit Assertions

JUnit 5 offers several assertion methods, and I quickly got the hang of using them. Here are a few that I used the most:

  • assertEquals(expected, actual): Checks if two values are equal.
  • assertFalse(condition): Checks if a condition is false.
  • assertTrue(condition): Checks if a condition is true.
  • assertNull(object): Verifies if something is null.

These assertions make it easy to confirm whether a piece of code behaves as expected.

Managing Test Execution

One thing that surprised me was that test methods don’t run in any specific order by default. This means each test should be independent of the others, which encourages better organization. I also learned about lifecycle methods like @BeforeEach and @AfterEach, which allow you to run setup and cleanup code before and after each test case. For example, @BeforeEach can be used to initialize objects before each test:

@BeforeEach
void setup() {
// Code to run before each test
}

In conclusion, Learning unit testing with JUnit 5 has been a great experience. It helps me write reliable code and catch bugs early. By writing small tests and using assertions, I can quickly confirm that my programs work as they should. JUnit 5 makes testing simple, and I look forward to improving my skills even more in the future!

If you’re new to testing like I was, JUnit 5 is definitely a great place to start!

From the blog CS@Worcester – MY_BLOG_ by Serah Matovu and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

On Structuring and Managing Test Cases

 In this post, I’ll be discussing a recent article I came across on the TestRail website, which can be found here. The post interested me because it dives deep into the importance of organizing and managing test cases effectively, a topic that we have been covering closely in class. As someone who does a lot of tests in various stages, this article gave me some good notes about how proper test case management can streamline the testing process and reduce the risk of overlooked issues.

One of the key takeaways from the article was the concept of structuring test cases with clear, concise steps and expected outcomes. This was notable because I’ve often seen situations where poorly written test cases lead to confusion or unnecessary delays. The article emphasized that each test case should be easily understandable, even for someone unfamiliar with the project, which makes a lot of sense. Clear test cases not only make the process smoother for current testers, but they also provide better documentation for future test cycles. I’ve personally benefited from this approach, especially when revisiting a project after some time has passed, well-written test cases make it easier to pick up where I left off, and they can even give hints (though these shouldn’t be needed) as to what the code is intending to do, and where some logical boundaries may exist.

The article also discussed the importance of categorizing test cases based on their purpose—whether they’re functional, regression, or exploratory tests. This structure helps ensure that each test type is executed at the appropriate stage and that nothing gets missed. In my experience, this kind of organization is crucial, particularly for large-scale projects where test cases can easily become scattered. I’ve found that when I categorize my tests according to at least some standard, I’m able to prioritize them better and avoid redundant testing, ultimately saving time and effort. It’s a simple but effective way to maintain focus on what really matters. My personal default is to follow the code chronologically / in the order of execution, as that is what feels most natural to me.

Another point I appreciated was the article’s advice on using test management tools, like TestRail itself, to keep track of test cases, execution results, and bugs. Granted, they are going to try to sell their own software, but it is still notable. Managing test cases manually in a spreadsheet or document can quickly become cumbersome, especially as projects grow, and using a product or software to handle this for you can be very beneficial.

Overall, this article reaffirmed the importance of a well-organized approach to test case management. As I continue testing processes and software, I’ll be more mindful of how I structure, categorize, and track my test cases, ensuring that testing is as efficient and effective as possible.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

On Structuring and Managing Test Cases

 In this post, I’ll be discussing a recent article I came across on the TestRail website, which can be found here. The post interested me because it dives deep into the importance of organizing and managing test cases effectively, a topic that we have been covering closely in class. As someone who does a lot of tests in various stages, this article gave me some good notes about how proper test case management can streamline the testing process and reduce the risk of overlooked issues.

One of the key takeaways from the article was the concept of structuring test cases with clear, concise steps and expected outcomes. This was notable because I’ve often seen situations where poorly written test cases lead to confusion or unnecessary delays. The article emphasized that each test case should be easily understandable, even for someone unfamiliar with the project, which makes a lot of sense. Clear test cases not only make the process smoother for current testers, but they also provide better documentation for future test cycles. I’ve personally benefited from this approach, especially when revisiting a project after some time has passed, well-written test cases make it easier to pick up where I left off, and they can even give hints (though these shouldn’t be needed) as to what the code is intending to do, and where some logical boundaries may exist.

The article also discussed the importance of categorizing test cases based on their purpose—whether they’re functional, regression, or exploratory tests. This structure helps ensure that each test type is executed at the appropriate stage and that nothing gets missed. In my experience, this kind of organization is crucial, particularly for large-scale projects where test cases can easily become scattered. I’ve found that when I categorize my tests according to at least some standard, I’m able to prioritize them better and avoid redundant testing, ultimately saving time and effort. It’s a simple but effective way to maintain focus on what really matters. My personal default is to follow the code chronologically / in the order of execution, as that is what feels most natural to me.

Another point I appreciated was the article’s advice on using test management tools, like TestRail itself, to keep track of test cases, execution results, and bugs. Granted, they are going to try to sell their own software, but it is still notable. Managing test cases manually in a spreadsheet or document can quickly become cumbersome, especially as projects grow, and using a product or software to handle this for you can be very beneficial.

Overall, this article reaffirmed the importance of a well-organized approach to test case management. As I continue testing processes and software, I’ll be more mindful of how I structure, categorize, and track my test cases, ensuring that testing is as efficient and effective as possible.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

On Structuring and Managing Test Cases

 In this post, I’ll be discussing a recent article I came across on the TestRail website, which can be found here. The post interested me because it dives deep into the importance of organizing and managing test cases effectively, a topic that we have been covering closely in class. As someone who does a lot of tests in various stages, this article gave me some good notes about how proper test case management can streamline the testing process and reduce the risk of overlooked issues.

One of the key takeaways from the article was the concept of structuring test cases with clear, concise steps and expected outcomes. This was notable because I’ve often seen situations where poorly written test cases lead to confusion or unnecessary delays. The article emphasized that each test case should be easily understandable, even for someone unfamiliar with the project, which makes a lot of sense. Clear test cases not only make the process smoother for current testers, but they also provide better documentation for future test cycles. I’ve personally benefited from this approach, especially when revisiting a project after some time has passed, well-written test cases make it easier to pick up where I left off, and they can even give hints (though these shouldn’t be needed) as to what the code is intending to do, and where some logical boundaries may exist.

The article also discussed the importance of categorizing test cases based on their purpose—whether they’re functional, regression, or exploratory tests. This structure helps ensure that each test type is executed at the appropriate stage and that nothing gets missed. In my experience, this kind of organization is crucial, particularly for large-scale projects where test cases can easily become scattered. I’ve found that when I categorize my tests according to at least some standard, I’m able to prioritize them better and avoid redundant testing, ultimately saving time and effort. It’s a simple but effective way to maintain focus on what really matters. My personal default is to follow the code chronologically / in the order of execution, as that is what feels most natural to me.

Another point I appreciated was the article’s advice on using test management tools, like TestRail itself, to keep track of test cases, execution results, and bugs. Granted, they are going to try to sell their own software, but it is still notable. Managing test cases manually in a spreadsheet or document can quickly become cumbersome, especially as projects grow, and using a product or software to handle this for you can be very beneficial.

Overall, this article reaffirmed the importance of a well-organized approach to test case management. As I continue testing processes and software, I’ll be more mindful of how I structure, categorize, and track my test cases, ensuring that testing is as efficient and effective as possible.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

On Structuring and Managing Test Cases

 In this post, I’ll be discussing a recent article I came across on the TestRail website, which can be found here. The post interested me because it dives deep into the importance of organizing and managing test cases effectively, a topic that we have been covering closely in class. As someone who does a lot of tests in various stages, this article gave me some good notes about how proper test case management can streamline the testing process and reduce the risk of overlooked issues.

One of the key takeaways from the article was the concept of structuring test cases with clear, concise steps and expected outcomes. This was notable because I’ve often seen situations where poorly written test cases lead to confusion or unnecessary delays. The article emphasized that each test case should be easily understandable, even for someone unfamiliar with the project, which makes a lot of sense. Clear test cases not only make the process smoother for current testers, but they also provide better documentation for future test cycles. I’ve personally benefited from this approach, especially when revisiting a project after some time has passed, well-written test cases make it easier to pick up where I left off, and they can even give hints (though these shouldn’t be needed) as to what the code is intending to do, and where some logical boundaries may exist.

The article also discussed the importance of categorizing test cases based on their purpose—whether they’re functional, regression, or exploratory tests. This structure helps ensure that each test type is executed at the appropriate stage and that nothing gets missed. In my experience, this kind of organization is crucial, particularly for large-scale projects where test cases can easily become scattered. I’ve found that when I categorize my tests according to at least some standard, I’m able to prioritize them better and avoid redundant testing, ultimately saving time and effort. It’s a simple but effective way to maintain focus on what really matters. My personal default is to follow the code chronologically / in the order of execution, as that is what feels most natural to me.

Another point I appreciated was the article’s advice on using test management tools, like TestRail itself, to keep track of test cases, execution results, and bugs. Granted, they are going to try to sell their own software, but it is still notable. Managing test cases manually in a spreadsheet or document can quickly become cumbersome, especially as projects grow, and using a product or software to handle this for you can be very beneficial.

Overall, this article reaffirmed the importance of a well-organized approach to test case management. As I continue testing processes and software, I’ll be more mindful of how I structure, categorize, and track my test cases, ensuring that testing is as efficient and effective as possible.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

On Structuring and Managing Test Cases

 In this post, I’ll be discussing a recent article I came across on the TestRail website, which can be found here. The post interested me because it dives deep into the importance of organizing and managing test cases effectively, a topic that we have been covering closely in class. As someone who does a lot of tests in various stages, this article gave me some good notes about how proper test case management can streamline the testing process and reduce the risk of overlooked issues.

One of the key takeaways from the article was the concept of structuring test cases with clear, concise steps and expected outcomes. This was notable because I’ve often seen situations where poorly written test cases lead to confusion or unnecessary delays. The article emphasized that each test case should be easily understandable, even for someone unfamiliar with the project, which makes a lot of sense. Clear test cases not only make the process smoother for current testers, but they also provide better documentation for future test cycles. I’ve personally benefited from this approach, especially when revisiting a project after some time has passed, well-written test cases make it easier to pick up where I left off, and they can even give hints (though these shouldn’t be needed) as to what the code is intending to do, and where some logical boundaries may exist.

The article also discussed the importance of categorizing test cases based on their purpose—whether they’re functional, regression, or exploratory tests. This structure helps ensure that each test type is executed at the appropriate stage and that nothing gets missed. In my experience, this kind of organization is crucial, particularly for large-scale projects where test cases can easily become scattered. I’ve found that when I categorize my tests according to at least some standard, I’m able to prioritize them better and avoid redundant testing, ultimately saving time and effort. It’s a simple but effective way to maintain focus on what really matters. My personal default is to follow the code chronologically / in the order of execution, as that is what feels most natural to me.

Another point I appreciated was the article’s advice on using test management tools, like TestRail itself, to keep track of test cases, execution results, and bugs. Granted, they are going to try to sell their own software, but it is still notable. Managing test cases manually in a spreadsheet or document can quickly become cumbersome, especially as projects grow, and using a product or software to handle this for you can be very beneficial.

Overall, this article reaffirmed the importance of a well-organized approach to test case management. As I continue testing processes and software, I’ll be more mindful of how I structure, categorize, and track my test cases, ensuring that testing is as efficient and effective as possible.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.