SIT707 – Software Quality and Testing 2018T2 Assignment 1 1/4


SIT707 – Software Quality and Testing 2018T2 Assignment 1
1/4

To place your Order, Click http://customwritings-us.com/orders.php
SIT707 Software Quality and Testing 2018 T2
Assignment 1 – A Report of Black Box (or Equivalent) Testing (20 marks)
Due Date: 4:00 pm, Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Submission: a report file in PDF format prepared according to the following objectives
and problem statement.
Objectives
1. To understand the critical issues in software testing, including but not limited to black
box, white box and grey box testing.
2. To demonstrate the ability to research and apply proper techniques to address a given
bug.
3. To write a proper essay for a specific topic and presenting/arguing the findings.
Problem Statement
Selenium, JUnit, TestNG and Yasca are automation testing frameworks widely used by
the industry. You are required to demonstrate your ability of correctly identify which
testing method along with testing tool(s) to use to perform a test on a selected program.
You have given a program along with this assignment question as an example of the
programs you can use for purpose of assignments of this unit. The taxMe program mimics
some basic Australian taxation rules by calculating the taxable annual income based on
four input variables including salary, medicareLevy, TBRLevy (Temporary budget repair
levy), and Lilevy (Lowincome levy). The output of the program will be the amount of the
payable tax and the income after tax. It calculates the payable tax based on the following
rules:
1. If your annual income is less than $18,200, you do not need to pay any tax.
2. If your income is between $18,201 and $37,000, you have to pay 19% for the
amount that exceeds the tax-free threshold, which is $18,200.
3. If your income is between $37,001 and $80,000, you have to pay $3572 plus 32.5%
for the amount that exceeds $37,001.
4. If your income is between $80,001 and $180,000, you have to pay $17,547 plus
37% for the amount that exceeds $80,001.
5. If your income is more than $180,000, you have to pay $54,547 plus 45% for the
amount that exceeds $180,000.
6. There are levies applicable to each stage of tax, each will make subtle changes to
your payable tax:
 medicareLevy will introduce a 2% increase on the tax.
 Lilevy will offset the first taxable tier to $20,543 instead of $18,200.
 TBRlevy will introduce a further 2% increase, however, it can only be applied to
the top tier of income earners.
SIT707 – Software Quality and Testing 2018T2 Assignment 1
2/4
Please note that provided program is just an example of what you can use. It is your
choice to use this program or any other program with the same level of complexity
including web application as you wish. Also, note that you need to use the same program
for your assignment 2.
Upon satisfactory completion of this assignment, you will be able to conduct basic level
research in software engineering, analyse gathered information, and communicate your
findings. To demonstrate your achievement of these goals, you must write a 3,000-word
report.
Your report should consist of the following chapters:
1. A proper title which matches the contents of your report.
2. Your name and Deakin student number in the author line.
3. An executive summary which summarises your findings. (You may need hints on
writing good executive summaries from http://unilearning.uow.edu.au/report/4bi1.html.)
4. An introduction chapter which explains about your chosen program, test methods
and test tools.
5. A literature review chapter which surveys the latest academic papers regarding
software testing and testing tools which include all papers listed below. You are advised to
identify and include more papers published by ACM and IEEE journals or conference
proceedings. Your review must not simply be a summary of each paper, but rather a deep
analysis of the body of work reported in the set of paper. Your aim in this part of the
report is to demonstrate deep and thorough understanding of the existing body of
knowledge encompassing software testing. The minimum number of references for this
assignment is 20.
6. An evaluation and justification of your chosen testing method and tool(s) based on the
program.
7. A conclusions chapter which summarises major findings of the study and indicates
future work which should be conducted in the area.
8. A bibliography list of all cited papers and other resources. IEEE and Harvard are
preferred. Please prepare your references according to the guidance at
http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/study-support/referencing
List of Papers
[1] Altaf, J.A. Dar, F.u. Rashid and M. Ra q, “Survey on selenium tool in software testing,” Green
Computing and Internet of Things (ICGCIoT), 2015 International Conference on, Noida, 2015,
pp.1378-1383.
[2] Holmes and M.   Kellogg, “Automating functional tests using Selenium,” AGILE 2006 (AGILE’ 06),
Minneapolis, MN, 2006.
[3] A.M.F.V. de Castro, G.A. Macedo, E.F. Collins and A.C. Dias-Neto, “Extension of Selenium RC tool to
perform automated testing with databases in web applications,” Automation of Software Test (AST), 2013
8th International Workshop on, San Francisco, CA, 2013, pp. 125-131.
[4] Radu Banabic and George Candea. 2012. “Fast black-box testing of system recovery code.” In
Proceedings of the 7th ACM European conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys ’12). ACM, New York,
SIT707 – Software Quality and Testing 2018T2 Assignment 1
3/4
NY, USA, pp. 281-294.
[5] E. Murphy-Hill, T. Zimmermann, C. Bird and N. Nagappan, “The Design Space of Bug Fixes and How
Developers Navigate It,” in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 41, no. 1, 65-81, Jan. 1 2015.
[6] D. Xu, W. Xu, B.K. Bavikati and W.E. Wong, \Mining Executable Specifications of Web Applications
from Selenium IDE Tests,”, 2012 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Software Security and Reliability
(SERE), Gaithersburg, MD, 2012, pp. 263-272.
[7] J. Bau, E. Bursztein, D. Gupta and J. Mitchell, “State of the Art: Automated Black-Box Web Application
Vulnerability Testing,” 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, USA, 2010, pp.
332-345.
[8] Le and J.T. Ray eld, “Web-application development using the Model/View/Controller design pattern,”
Proceedings. of the Fifth IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference
(EDOC’01), Seattle, WA, 2001, pp. 118-127.
[9] Cox, M.G. and Harris, P.M., 1999. “Design and use of reference data sets for testing scientific software.”
Analytica Chimica Acta, 380(2), pp.339-351.
[10] Kelly, D., Thorsteinson, S. and Hook, D., 2011. “Scientific software testing: analysis with four
dimensions.” IEEE software, 28(3), pp.84-90.
[11] Kanewala, U. and Bieman, J.M., 2014. “Testing scientific software: A systematic literature review.”
Information and software technology 56(10), pp. 1219-1232.
[12] Hinsen, K., 2015. “The approximation tower in computational science: Why testing scientific software
is difficult.” Computing in Science & Engineering, 17(4), pp. 72-77.
[13] Bertolino, A., 2007, May. “Software testing research: Achievements, challenges, dreams.” In 2007
Future of Software Engineering (pp. 85-103). IEEE Computer Society.
[14] Hook, D. and Kelly, D., 2009, May. “Testing for trustworthiness in scientific software.” In Proceedings
of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering (pp.
59-64). IEEE Computer Society.
[15] Joppa, L.N., McInerny, G., Harper, R., Salido, L., Takeda, K., O’Hara, K., Gavaghan, D. and Emmott,
S., 2013. “Troubling trends in scientific software use.” Science, 340(6134), pp. 814-815.
Submission details: You must submit an electronic copy of your assignment files via
CloudDeakin and include both your report and presentation. Assignments will not be
accepted through any other manner and email and paper based submissions will ordinarily
be rejected. Delays caused by student’s own computer downtime cannot be accepted as a
valid reason for late submission without penalty. Students must plan their work to allow
for both scheduled and unscheduled downtime.
Copying, Plagiarism: This is an individual assignment. You are not permitted to
work as a part of a group when writing this assignment. Plagiarism is the submission
of somebody else’s work in a manner that gives the impression that the work is your own.
For individual assignments, plagiarism includes the case where two or more students work
collaboratively on the assignment. The School of Information Technology treats
plagiarism very seriously. When it is detected, penalties are strictly imposed. Deakin
University uses Turnitin as the program that allows you to check whether there is any
unoriginal material in your work, please refer to
http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/clouddeakin/help-guides/assessment/plagiarism.
SIT707 – Software Quality and Testing 2018T2 Assignment 1
4/4
Table 1. Marking Scheme.
Assignment 2 (20%=20 Marks)
Criteria Excellent Satisfactory Average Marginal Not Show
Literature
Review
Collect and record self
determined
information/data from
self-selected sources,
choosing or devising an
appropriate
methodology with self
structured guidelines.
Organise
information/data using
student determined
structures and
management of
processes. Generate
questions/aims/hypothe
ses based on literature
surveyed by student
himself/herself.
(4-5 marks)
Collect and record self
determined
information/data from
self selected sources,
choosing an appropriate
methodology based on
structured guidelines.
Organise
information/data using
student determined
structures, and manage
the processes, within the
parameters set by the
guidelines. Generate
questions/aims/
hypotheses framed
within structured
guidelines.
(2-3 marks)
Collect and record
required
information/data from
self selected sources
using one of the several
prescribed
methodologies.
Organise
information/data using
recommended
structures. Manage self
determined processes
with multiple possible
pathways. Respond to
questions/tasks
generated from a
closed inquiry.
(1 marks)
Fail to collect
required
information or
data from the
pre- scribed
source. Fail to
organise
information/da
ta using
prescribed
structure. Fail
to respond to
questions/task
s arising
explicitly from
a closed
inquiry.
(0 marks)
Evaluation
and
Justification
on chosen
testing
method and
tools
A detailed and clear
evaluation and
justification of chosen
testing method and
testing tool(s) provided
based on the program’s
specification.
(4-5 marks)
A detailed evaluation and
justification of chosen
testing method and
testing tool(s) provided
BUT they are NOT best
suited for the program.
(2-3 marks)
A detailed evaluation
and justification
provided BUT only for
testing method/tools.
(1 marks)
Fail to provide
proper
justification
on for selected
testing method
and tools.
(0 marks)
Scientific
writing in
Executive
Summary,
Introduction,
and
Conclusions
Use appropriate
language and genre to
extend the knowledge
of a range of audiences.
Use appropriate
language and genre to
extend the knowledge
of a range of audiences
and properly explain
the chosen program.
(4-5 marks)
Use discipline specific
language and genres to
address gaps of a self
selected audience. Apply
innovatively the
knowledge developed to
a different context.
(2-3 marks)
Use some discipline
specific language and
prescribed genre to
demonstrate
understanding from a
stated perspective and
for a specified
audience. Apply to
different contexts the
knowledge developed.
(1 marks)
Fail to
demonstrate
understanding
for lecturer as
the audience.
Fail to apply
to a similar
context the
knowledge
developed.
(0 marks)
Reference More than 20
bibliographic items (all
of them are academic
papers) are correctly
presented and inline
citations are correctly
used.
(2 marks)
More than 20
bibliographic items
(most of them are
academic papers) are
presented, but there are a
few errors. In- line
citations are used but
with a few errors.
(1.5 marks)
More than 10
bibliographic items
(most of them are
academic papers and
all given papers are
presented) are
presented. In-line
citations are often used
incorrectly.
(1 marks)
Less than 10
reference
items are
presented.
More than 7
errors in the
bibliographic
list and in-line
citations.
(0 marks)
Presentation The presentation is
well-organized, reflects
the report information
clearly with excellent
presentation skills.
(3 marks)
The presentation is well
organized, reflects the
report information
clearly.
(2 marks)
The presentation is
well organized.
(1 marks)
Fail to present
valid
information.
(0 marks)

To place your Order, Click http://customwritings-us.com/orders.php

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: