Static Testing and Review Techniques
Domain focus
Static testing examines work products without executing them. The exam tests static analysis, review types, review roles, and the review process, including when static techniques are more effective than dynamic testing.
Review types and roles
- Informal review has no formal process; it is useful for quick feedback.
- A walkthrough is led by the author to explain a work product and gather comments.
- A technical review is a documented, peer review by technically qualified reviewers; it may be led by a moderator.
- An inspection is the most formal review, uses defined roles, entry/exit criteria, checklists, and metrics, and is led by a moderator.
- Roles include manager (decides, resources), moderator (facilitates), author (creates and fixes), reviewers (inspect), and scribe (records).
- Review activities: planning, kick-off, individual review, review meeting, rework, follow-up.
Static analysis
Tools can detect unreachable code, undeclared variables, inconsistent interfaces, security weaknesses, and violations of coding standards. Static analysis complements reviews but cannot judge requirements quality or business intent.
Worked example
A requirements review finds “the system must respond quickly.” That is a defect in the requirements: it is ambiguous and untestable. The reviewer records it, the team rewrites it as “95% of search requests complete in under 2 seconds at 500 concurrent users,” and follow-up confirms the change. Catching this in review avoids costly rework after code and tests are built. If the review had been an inspection, the moderator would check entry criteria, assign checklist-based individual review, log findings, and verify rework at follow-up.
Traps
Calling any meeting a walkthrough or inspection without the defined process and roles loses marks. Skipping follow-up means defects are logged but not closed. Reviewing only code ignores requirements, design, and testware. Treating static analysis as a substitute for human review misses intent and ambiguity.