UNIT- I

INTRODUCTION

What is testing?

Testing is the process of exercising or evaluating a system or system components by manual or

automated means to verify that it satisfies specified requirements.

The Purpose of Testing

Testing consumes at least half of the time and work required to produce a functional program.
o MYTH: Good programmers write code without bugs. (It’s wrong!!!)
o History says that even well written programs still have 1-3 bugs per hundred statements.

Productivity and Quality in Software:

o In production of consumer goods and other products, every manufacturing stage is

subjected to quality control and testing from component to final stage.
o If flaws are discovered at any stage, the product is either discarded or cycled back for
rework and correction.
o Productivity is measured by the sum of the costs of the material, the rework, and the
discarded components, and the cost of quality assurance and testing.
o There is a tradeoff between quality assurance costs and manufacturing costs: If sufficient
time is not spent in quality assurance, the reject rate will be high and so will be the net
cost. If inspection is good and all errors are caught as they occur, inspection costs will
dominate, and again the net cost will suffer.
o Testing and Quality assurance costs for 'manufactured' items can be as low as 2% in
consumer products or as high as 80% in products such as space-ships, nuclear reactors,
and aircrafts, where failures threaten life. Whereas the manufacturing cost of software is
trivial.
o The biggest part of software cost is the cost of bugs: the cost of detecting them, the cost of
correcting them, the cost of designing tests that discover them, and the cost of running
those tests.
o For software, quality and productivity are indistinguishable because the cost of a software
copy is trivial.
o Testing and Test Design are parts of quality assurance should also focus on bug prevention.
A prevented bug is better than a detected and corrected bug.
Phases in a tester's mental life:

Phases in a tester's mental life can be categorized into the following 5 phases:

1. Phase 0: (Until 1956: Debugging Oriented) There is no difference between testing and
debugging. Phase 0 thinking was the norm in early days of software development till testing
emerged as a discipline.
2. Phase 1: (1957-1978: Demonstration Oriented) the purpose of testing here is to show that
software works. Highlighted during the late 1970s. This failed because the probability of
showing that software works 'decreases' as testing increases. I.e. the more you test, the more
likely you will find a bug.
3. Phase 2: (1979-1982: Destruction Oriented) the purpose of testing is to show that software
doesn’t work. This also failed because the software will never get released as you will find
one bug or the other. Also, a bug corrected may also lead to another bug.
4. Phase 3: (1983-1987: Evaluation Oriented) the purpose of testing is not to prove anything
but to reduce the perceived risk of not working to an acceptable value (Statistical Quality
Control). Notion is that testing does improve the product to the extent that testing catches
bugs and to the extent that those bugs are fixed. The product is released when the confidence
on that product is high enough. (Note: This is applied to large software products with
millions of code and years of use.)
5. Phase 4: (1988-2000: Prevention Oriented) Testability is the factor considered here. One
reason is to reduce the labor of testing. Other reason is to check the testable and non-testable
code. Testable code has fewer bugs than the code that's hard to test. Identifying the testing
techniques to test the code is the main key here.

Test Design:

We know that the software code must be designed and tested, but many appear to be unaware that
tests themselves must be designed and tested. Tests should be properly designed and tested
before applying it to the actual code.

Testing isn’t everything:

There are approaches other than testing to create better software. Methods other than testing
include:

1. Inspection Methods: Methods like walkthroughs, desk checking, formal inspections and
code reading appear to be as effective as testing but the bugs caught don’t completely
overlap.
2. Design Style: While designing the software itself, adopting stylistic objectives such as
testability, openness and clarity can do much to prevent bugs.
3. Static Analysis Methods: Includes formal analysis of source code during compilation. In
earlier days, it is a routine job of the programmer to do that. Now, the compilers have
taken over that job.
4. Languages: The source language can help reduce certain kinds of bugs. Programmers find
new bugs while using new languages.
 5. Development Methodologies and Development Environment: The development process
and the environment in which that methodology is embedded can prevent many kinds of
bugs.

Dichotomies:

∙ Testing Versus Debugging:

Many people consider both as same. Purpose of testing is to show that a program has
bugs. The purpose of testing is to find the error or misconception that led to the program's
failure and to design and implement the program changes that correct the error.
Debugging usually follows testing, but they differ as to goals, methods and most
important psychology. The below tab le shows few important differences between testing
and debugging.
Testing, as executes, should strive to
Testing be predictable, dull, constrained, rigid
and inhuman.

Testing starts with known conditions,

uses predefined procedures and has
predictable outcomes.

Much testing can be done without

design knowledge.

Testing can and should be planned,

designed and scheduled. Testing can often be done by an
outsider.

Testing is a demonstration of error or

apparent correctness. Much of test execution and design can
be automated.

Testing proves a programmer's

failure.

∙ Function versus Structure:

Debugging
Debugging starts from possibly unknown experimentation and freedom.
initial conditions and the end cannot be
Debugging is impossible without detailed
predicted except statistically.
design knowledge.
Procedure and duration of debugging cannot
be so constrained. Debugging must be done by an

Debugging is a deductive process.

insider. Automated debugging is still
Debugging is the programmer's vindication
(Justification). a dream.

Debugging demands intuitive leaps,

o Tests can be designed from a functional or a structural point of view. o In Functional

testing, the program or system is treated as a black box. It is subjected to inputs, and
its outputs are verified for conformance to specified behavior. Functional testing takes
the user point of view- bother about functionality and features and not the program's
implementation.

o In Structural testing does look at the implementation details. Things such as

programming style, control method, source language, database design, and coding
details dominate structural testing.
o Both Structural and functional tests are useful, both have limitations, and both target
different kinds of bugs. Functional tests can detect all bugs but would take infinite
time to do so. Structural tests are inherently finite but cannot detect all errors even
if completely executed.

∙ Designer versus Tester:

o Test designer is the person who designs the tests where as the tester is the one
actually tests the code. During functional testing, the designer and tester are
probably different persons. During unit testing, the tester and the programmer
merge into one person.
o Tests designed and executed by the software designers are by nature biased towards
structural consideration and therefore suffer the limitations of structural testing.

∙ Modularity versus Efficiency:

A module is a discrete, well-defined, small component of a system. Smaller the modules,

difficult to integrate; larger the modules, difficult to understand. Both tests and systems
can be modular. Testing can and should likewise be organized into modular components.
Small, independent test cases can be designed to test independent modules.
 ∙ Small versus Large:

Programming in large means constructing programs that consists of many components

written by many different programmers. Programming in the small is what we do for
ourselves in the privacy of our own offices. Qualitative and Quantitative changes occur
with size and so must testing methods and quality criteria.

∙ Builder versus Buyer:

Most software is written and used by the same organization. Unfortunately, this situation
is dishonest because it clouds accountability. If there is no separation between builder and
buyer, there can be no accountability.
∙ The different roles / users in a system include:
1. Builder: Who designs the system and is accountable to the buyer.
2. Buyer: Who pays for the system in the hope of profits from providing services? 3.
User: Ultimate beneficiary or victim of the system. The user's interests are also
guarded by.
4. Tester: Who is dedicated to the builder's destruction?
5. Operator: Who has to live with the builders' mistakes, the buyers' murky (unclear)
specifications, testers' oversights and the users' complaints?

MODEL FOR TESTING:

Figure 1.1: A Model for Testing

Above figure is a model of testing process. It includes three models: A model of the
environment, a model of the program and a model of the expected bugs.
∙ Environment:
o A Program's environment is the hardware and software required to make it run. For
online systems, the environment may include communication lines, other systems,
 terminals and operators.
o The environment also includes all programs that interact with and are used to
create the program under test - such as OS, linkage editor, loader, compiler, utility
routines.
o Because the hardware and firmware are stable, it is not smart to blame the
environment for bugs.
∙ Program:
o Most programs are too complicated to understand in detail.
o The concept of the program is to be simplified in order to test it.
o If simple model of the program doesn’t explain the unexpected behavior, we may
have to modify that model to include more facts and details. And if that fails, we
may have to modify the program.
∙ Bugs:
o Bugs are more insidious (deceiving but harmful) than ever we expect them to be. o
An unexpected test result may lead us to change our notion of what a bug is and our
model of bugs.
o Some optimistic notions that many programmers or testers have about bugs are
usually unable to test effectively and unable to justify the dirty tests most
programs need.
o Optimistic notions about bugs:
1. Benign Bug Hypothesis: The belief that bugs are nice, tame and logical.
(Benign: Not Dangerous)

2. Bug Locality Hypothesis: The belief that a bug discovered with in a

component affects only that component's behavior.
3. Control Bug Dominance: The belief those errors in the control structures
(if, switch etc) of programs dominate the bugs.
4. Code / Data Separation: The belief that bugs respect the separation of
code and data.
5. Lingua Salvatore Est.: The belief that the language syntax and semantics
(e.g. Structured Coding, Strong typing, etc) eliminates most bugs.
6. Corrections Abide: The mistaken belief that a corrected bug remains
corrected.
7. Silver Bullets: The mistaken belief that X (Language, Design method,
representation, environment) grants immunity from bugs.
8. Sadism Suffices: The common belief (especially by independent tester) that
a sadistic streak, low cunning, and intuition are sufficient to eliminate most
bugs. Tough bugs need methodology and techniques.
9. Angelic Testers: The belief that testers are better at test design than
programmers is at code design.
∙ Tests:
o Tests are formal procedures, Inputs must be prepared, Outcomes should predict,
tests should be documented, commands need to be executed, and results are to be
observed. All these errors are subjected to error
o We do three distinct kinds of testing on a typical software system. They are: 1.
 Unit / Component Testing: A Unit is the smallest testable piece of software
that can be compiled, assembled, linked, loaded etc. A unit is usually the work
of one programmer and consists of several hundred or fewer lines of code.
Unit Testing is the testing we do to show that the unit does not satisfy its
functional specification or that its implementation structure does not match
the intended design structure. A Component is an integrated aggregate of one
or more units. Component Testing is the testing we do to show that the
component does not satisfy its functional specification or that its
implementation structure does not match the intended design structure.
2. Integration Testing: Integration is the process by which components are
aggregated to create larger components. Integration Testing is testing
done to show that even though the components were individually
satisfactory (after passing component testing), checks the combination of
components are incorrect or inconsistent.
3. System Testing: A System is a big component. System Testing is aimed at
revealing bugs that cannot be attributed to components. It includes testing
for performance, security, accountability, configuration sensitivity, startup
and recovery.
∙ Role of Models: The art of testing consists of creating, selecting, exploring, and revising
models. Our ability to go through this process depends on the number of different models
we have at hand and their ability to express a program's behavior.

CONSEQUENCES OF BUGS:

∙ Importance of bugs: The importance of bugs depends on frequency, correction cost,

installation cost, and consequences.
1. Frequency: How often does that kind of bug occur? Pay more attention to the
more frequent bug types.
2. Correction Cost: What does it cost to correct the bug after it is found? The cost is
the sum of 2 factors: (1) the cost of discovery (2) the cost of correction. These
costs go up dramatically later in the development cycle when the bug is
discovered. Correction cost also depends on system size.
3. Installation Cost: Installation cost depends on the number of installations: small
for a single user program but more for distributed systems. Fixing one bug and
distributing the fix could exceed the entire system's development cost.
4. Consequences: What are the consequences of the bug? Bug consequences can
range from mild to catastrophic.

A reasonable metric for bug importance is

Importance= ($) = Frequency * (Correction cost + Installation cost + Consequential
cost)

∙ Consequences of bugs: The consequences of a bug can be measure in terms of human

rather than machine. Some consequences of a bug on a scale of one to ten are: 1 Mild:
The symptoms of the bug offend us aesthetically (gently); a misspelled output or a
 misaligned printout.
2 Moderate: Outputs are misleading or redundant. The bug impacts the system's
performance.
3 Annoying: The system's behavior because of the bug is dehumanizing. E.g. Names
are truncated or arbitrarily modified.
4 Disturbing: It refuses to handle legitimate (authorized / legal) transactions. The
ATM won’t give you money. My credit card is declared invalid.
5 Serious: It loses track of its transactions. Not just the transaction itself but the fact
that the transaction occurred. Accountability is lost.
6 Very Serious: The bug causes the system to do the wrong transactions. Instead of
losing your paycheck, the system credits it to another account or converts deposits
to withdrawals.
7 Extreme: The problems aren't limited to a few users or to few transaction types.
They are frequent and arbitrary instead of sporadic infrequent) or for unusual
cases.
8 Intolerable: Long term unrecoverable corruption of the database occurs and the
corruption is not easily discovered. Serious consideration is given to shutting the
system down.
9 Catastrophic: The decision to shut down is taken out of our hands because the
system fails.
10 Infectious: What can be worse than a failed system? One that corrupt other
systems even though it does not fall in itself ; that erodes the social physical
environment; that melts nuclear reactors and starts war.

∙ Flexible severity rather than absolutes:

o Quality can be measured as a combination of factors, of which number of bugs and

their severity is only one component.
o Many organizations have designed and used satisfactory, quantitative, quality
metrics.
o Because bugs and their symptoms play a significant role in such metrics, as testing
progresses, you see the quality rise to a reasonable value which is deemed to be
safe to ship the product.
o The factors involved in bug severity are:
1. Correction Cost: Not so important because catastrophic bugs may be
corrected easier and small bugs may take major time to debug.
2. Context and Application Dependency: Severity depends on the context
and the application in which it is used.
3. Creating Culture Dependency: What’s important depends on the creators
of software and their cultural aspirations. Test tool vendors are more
sensitive about bugs in their software then games software vendors.
4. User Culture Dependency: Severity also depends on user culture. Naive
users of PC software go crazy over bugs where as pros (experts) may just
ignore.
5. The software development phase: Severity depends on development
 phase. Any bugs gets more severe as it gets closer to field use and more
severe the longer it has been around.

TAXONOMY OF BUGS:
∙ There is no universally correct way categorize bugs. The taxonomy is not rigid. ∙ A given
bug can be put into one or another category depending on its history and the programmer's
state of mind.
∙ The major categories are: (1) Requirements, Features and Functionality Bugs (2)
Structural Bugs (3) Data Bugs (4) Coding Bugs (5) Interface, Integration and System
Bugs (6) Test and Test Design Bugs.

✔ Requirements, Features and Functionality Bugs: Various categories in Requirements,

Features and Functionality bugs include:

1. Requirements and Specifications Bugs:

∙ Requirements and specifications developed from them can be incomplete ambiguous, or
self-contradictory. They can be misunderstood or impossible to understand. ∙ The
specifications that don't have flaws in them may change while the design is in progress. The
features are added, modified and deleted.
∙ Requirements, especially, as expressed in specifications are a major source of expensive
bugs.
∙ The range is from a few percentages to more than 50%, depending on the application and
environment.
∙ What hurts most about the bugs is that they are the earliest to invade the system and the last
to leave.

2. Feature Bugs:
∙ Specification problems usually create corresponding feature problems. ∙ A feature can be
wrong, missing, or superfluous (serving no useful purpose). A missing feature or case is
easier to detect and correct. A wrong feature could have deep design implications.
∙ Removing the features might complicate the software, consume more resources, and foster
more bugs.

3. Feature Interaction Bugs:

∙ Providing correct, clear, implementable and testable feature specifications is not enough. ∙
Features usually come in groups or related features. The features of each group and the
interaction of features within the group are usually well tested.
∙ The problem is unpredictable interactions between feature groups or even between
individual features. For example, your telephone is provided with call holding and call
forwarding. The interactions between these two features may have bugs.
∙ Every application has its peculiar set of features and a much bigger set of unspecified
feature interaction potentials and therefore result in feature interaction bugs.

Specification and Feature Bug Remedies:

 ∙ Most feature bugs are rooted in human to human communication problems. One solution is
to use high-level, formal specification languages or systems.
∙ Such languages and systems provide short term support but in the long run, does not solve
the problem.
∙ Short term Support: Specification languages facilitate formalization of requirements and
inconsistency and ambiguity analysis.
∙ Long term Support: Assume that we have a great specification language and that can be
used to create unambiguous, complete specifications with unambiguous complete tests
and consistent test criteria.
∙ The specification problem has been shifted to a higher level but not eliminated. Testing
Techniques for functional bugs: Most functional test techniques- that is those
techniques which are based on a behavioral description of software, such as
transaction flow testing, syntax testing, domain testing, logic testing and state
testing are useful in testing functional bugs.

✔ Structural bugs: Various categories in Structural bugs include:

1. Control and Sequence Bugs:
∙ Control and sequence bugs include paths left out, unreachable code, improper nesting of
loops, loop-back or loop termination criteria incorrect, missing process steps, duplicated
processing, unnecessary processing, rampaging, GOTO's, ill-conceived (not properly
planned) switches, spaghetti code, and worst of all, pachinko code.
∙ One reason for control flow bugs is that this area is amenable (supportive) to theoretical
treatment.
∙ Most of the control flow bugs are easily tested and caught in unit testing. ∙ Another reason
for control flow bugs is that use of old code especially ALP & COBOL code are dominated
by control flow bugs.

∙ Control and sequence bugs at all levels are caught by testing, especially structural testing,
more specifically path testing combined with a bottom line functional test based on a
specification.

2. Logic Bugs:
∙ Bugs in logic, especially those related to misunderstanding how case statements and logic
operators behave singly and combinations
∙ Also includes evaluation of boolean expressions in deeply nested IF-THEN-ELSE
constructs.
∙ If the bugs are parts of logical (i.e. boolean) processing not related to control flow, they are
characterized as processing bugs.
∙ If the bugs are parts of a logical expression (i.e. control-flow statement) which is used to
direct the control flow, then they are categorized as control-flow bugs.

3. Processing Bugs:
∙ Processing bugs include arithmetic bugs, algebraic, mathematical function evaluation,
algorithm selection and general processing.
 ∙ Examples of Processing bugs include: Incorrect conversion from one data representation to
other, ignoring overflow, improper use of greater-than-or-equal etc
∙ Although these bugs are frequent (12%), they tend to be caught in good unit testing.

4. Initialization Bugs:
∙ Initialization bugs are common. Initialization bugs can be improper and superfluous. ∙
Superfluous bugs are generally less harmful but can affect performance. ∙ Typical
initialization bugs include: Forgetting to initialize the variables before first use,
assuming that they are initialized elsewhere, initializing to the wrong format,
representation or type etc
∙ Explicit declaration of all variables, as in Pascal, can reduce some initialization problems.

5. Data-Flow Bugs and Anomalies:

∙ Most initialization bugs are special case of data flow anomalies.
∙ A data flow anomaly occurs where there is a path along which we expect to do something
unreasonable with data, such as using an uninitialized variable, attempting to use a
variable before it exists, modifying and then not storing or using the result, or initializing
twice without an intermediate use.

✔ Data bugs:
∙ Data bugs include all bugs that arise from the specification of data objects, their formats, the
number of such objects, and their initial values.
∙ Data Bugs are at least as common as bugs in code, but they are often treated as if they did
not exist at all.
∙ Code migrates data: Software is evolving towards programs in which more and more of the
control and processing functions are stored in tables.
∙ Because of this, there is an increasing awareness that bugs in code are only half the battle
and the data problems should be given equal attention.

Dynamic Data Vs Static data:

∙ Dynamic data are transitory. Whatever their purpose their lifetime is relatively short,
typically the processing time of one transaction. A storage object may be used to hold
dynamic data of different types, with different formats, attributes and residues.
∙ Dynamic data bugs are due to leftover garbage in a shared resource. This can be handled in
one of the three ways: (1) Clean up after the use by the user (2) Common Cleanup by the
resource manager (3) No Clean up
∙ Static Data are fixed in form and content. They appear in the source code or database
directly or indirectly, for example a number, a string of characters, or a bit pattern. ∙ Compile
time processing will solve the bugs caused by static data.

Information, parameter, and control:

Static or dynamic data can serve in one of three roles, or in combination of roles: as a parameter,
for control, or for information.

Content, Structure and Attributes:

∙ Content can be an actual bit pattern, character string, or number put into a data structure.
Content is a pure bit pattern and has no meaning unless it is interpreted by a hardware or
software processor. All data bugs result in the corruption or misinterpretation of content.
∙ Structure relates to the size, shape and numbers that describe the data object, which is
memory location used to store the content. (E.g. A two dimensional array). ∙ Attributes
relates to the specification meaning that is the semantics associated with the contents of a
data object. (E.g. an integer, an alphanumeric string, a subroutine). The severity and subtlety
of bugs increases as we go from content to attributes because the things get less formal in
that direction.

✔ Coding bugs:
∙ Coding errors of all kinds can create any of the other kind of bugs.
∙ Syntax errors are generally not important in the scheme of things if the source language
translator has adequate syntax checking.
∙ If a program has many syntax errors, then we should expect many logic and coding bugs. ∙
The documentation bugs are also considered as coding bugs which may mislead the
maintenance programmers.

✔ Interface, integration, and system bugs:

Various categories of bugs in Interface, Integration, and System Bugs are:

1. External Interfaces:
∙ The external interfaces are the means used to communicate with the world. ∙ These include
devices, actuators, sensors, input terminals, printers, and communication lines.
∙ The primary design criterion for an interface with outside world should be robustness.

∙ All external interfaces, human or machine should employ a protocol. The protocol may be
wrong or incorrectly implemented.
∙ Other external interface bugs are: invalid timing or sequence assumptions related to external
signals
∙ Misunderstanding external input or output formats.
∙ Insufficient tolerance to bad input data.

2. Internal Interfaces:
∙ Internal interfaces are in principle not different from external interfaces but they are more
controlled.
∙ A best example for internal interfaces is communicating routines.
∙ The external environment is fixed and the system must adapt to it but the internal
environment, which consists of interfaces with other components, can be negotiated. ∙ Internal
interfaces have the same problem as external interfaces.
3. Hardware Architecture:
∙ Bugs related to hardware architecture originate mostly from misunderstanding how the
hardware works.
∙ Examples of hardware architecture bugs: address generation error, i/o device operation /
instruction error, waiting too long for a response, incorrect interrupt handling etc. ∙ The
remedy for hardware architecture and interface problems is twofold: (1) Good Programming
and Testing (2) Centralization of hardware interface software in programs written by
hardware interface specialists.

4. Operating System Bugs:

∙ Program bugs related to the operating system are a combination of hardware architecture
and interface bugs mostly caused by a misunderstanding of what it is the operating
system does.
∙ Use operating system interface specialists, and use explicit interface modules or macros for
all operating system calls.
∙ This approach may not eliminate the bugs but at least will localize them and make testing
easier.

5. Software Architecture:
∙ Software architecture bugs are the kind that called - interactive.
∙ Routines can pass unit and integration testing without revealing such bugs. ∙ Many of them
depend on load, and their symptoms emerge only when the system is stressed.
∙ Sample for such bugs: Assumption that there will be no interrupts, Failure to block or un
block interrupts, Assumption that memory and registers were initialized or not initialized
etc
∙ Careful integration of modules and subjecting the final system to a stress test are effective
methods for these bugs.

6. Control and Sequence Bugs (Systems Level):

These bugs include: Ignored timing, Assuming that events occur in a specified sequence,
Working on data before all the data have arrived from disc, Waiting for an impossible
combination of prerequisites, Missing, wrong, redundant or superfluous process steps. The
remedy for these bugs is highly structured sequence control.
Specialize, internal, sequence control mechanisms are helpful.

7. Resource Management Problems:

∙ Memory is subdivided into dynamically allocated resources such as buffer blocks, queue
blocks, task control blocks, and overlay buffers.
∙ External mass storage units such as discs, are subdivided into memory resource pools. ∙
Some resource management and usage bugs: Required resource not obtained, Wrong
resource used, Resource is already in use, Resource dead lock etc
∙ Resource Management Remedies: A design remedy that prevents bugs is always
preferable to a test method that discovers them.
∙ The design remedy in resource management is to keep the resource structure simple: the
 fewest different kinds of resources, the fewest pools, and no private resource
management.

8. Integration Bugs:
∙ Integration bugs are bugs having to do with the integration of, and with the interfaces
between, working and tested components.
∙ These bugs results from inconsistencies or incompatibilities between components. ∙ The
communication methods include data structures, call sequences, registers, semaphores, and
communication links and protocols results in integration bugs. ∙ The integration bugs do not
constitute a big bug category (9%) they are expensive category because they are usually
caught late in the game and because they force changes in several components and/or data
structures.

9. System Bugs:
∙ System bugs covering all kinds of bugs that cannot be ascribed to a component or to their
simple interactions, but result from the totality of interactions between many components
such as programs, data, hardware, and the operating systems.
∙ There can be no meaningful system testing until there has been thorough component and
integration testing.
∙ System bugs are infrequent (1.7%) but very important because they are often found only
after the system has been fielded.

✔ TEST AND TEST DESIGN BUGS:

∙ Testing: testers have no immunity to bugs. Tests require complicated scenarios and
databases.
∙ They require code or the equivalent to execute and consequently they can have bugs. ∙ Test
criteria: if the specification is correct, it is correctly interpreted and implemented, and a
proper test has been designed; but the criterion by which the software's behavior is

judged may be incorrect or impossible. So, a proper test criteria has to be designed. The
more complicated the criteria, the likelier they are to have bugs.

Remedies: The remedies of test bugs are:

1. Test Debugging: The first remedy for test bugs is testing and debugging the tests. Test
debugging, when compared to program debugging, is easier because tests, when properly
designed are simpler than programs and do not have to make concessions to efficiency. 2. Test
Quality Assurance: Programmers have the right to ask how quality in independent testing is
monitored.
3. Test Execution Automation: The history of software bug removal and prevention is
indistinguishable from the history of programming automation aids. Assemblers, loaders,
compilers are developed to reduce the incidence of programming and operation errors. Test
execution bugs are virtually eliminated by various test execution automation tools.
4. Test Design Automation: Just as much of software development has been automated, much
test design can be and has been automated. For a given productivity rate, automation reduces the
bug count - be it for software or be it for tests.