Static Testing - Software Testing: Testing Across the Entire Software Development Life Cycle - page 97

ownership reaches its zenith with program code. Because no large software applica-
tion is 100% defect free, all program code has room for improvement. Static testing
is one of the more cost-effective ways to identify these improvements.
Consider using a two-step approach to static testing. For the fi rst step, clean up
the cosmetic appearance of the document: check spelling, check grammar, check
punctuation, and check formatting. The benefi t of doing the fi rst step is that when
the document is cosmetically clean, the readers can concentrate on the content. The
liability of skipping the fi rst step is that if the document is not cosmetically clean, the
readers will surely stop reading the document for meaning and start proofreading—
to the detriment of content review.
For the second step, use whatever techniques seem appropriate to focus expert
review on document contents. Here are some of the more popular and effective tech-
niques used for content review.

Static testing techniques for content review

•
•
•

desk checking
inspections
walk-throughs

Desk checking is the least formal and least time-consuming static testing tech-
nique. Of all the techniques, desk checking is the only one whereby the author is en-
couraged to test his or her own document. The remaining techniques rely on indepen-
dent eyes to provide a more thorough and objective review. Desk checking involves
fi rst running a spellchecker, grammar checker, syntax checker, or whatever tools are
available to clean up the cosmetic appearance of the document. Then, the author slowly
reviews the document trying to look for inconsistencies, incompleteness, and missing
information. Problems detected in the contents should be corrected directly by the au-
thor with the possible advice of the project manager and other experts on the project.
Once all corrections are made, the cosmetic testing is rerun to catch and correct all
spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors introduced by the content corrections.
Inspections are a little more formal and a little more time consuming than desk
checking. The technique also fi nds more document defects than desk checking. The
intent of the technique is for an independent pair of eyes, usually a more senior
member of the team, to read the document and discover content problems. As rec-
ommended with desk checking, the document to be inspected should be made as
cosmetically clean as possible by the author so that the independent reader(s) can
focus on the content. The independent reader then takes the document elsewhere and
reviews it. Separating the document from the author allows the document to stand
on its own merit. If the reviewer inspects the document in front of the author, the
human tendency is for the author to kibitz the reviewer, which defeats the purpose of
the independent reviewer. Suspected problems in the content should be documented
by the independent reviewer and presented to the author in a subsequent meeting.
The author then needs to provide suggested corrective action alongside the suspected
problem. The project manager or someone senior on the project should then review