COMPARISON BETWEEN TRIAL ERROR METHOD AND INTEGRATION TESTING METHOD ON THE SERVICE MENU AT PT. HARTONO ISTANA TEKNOLOGI
Abstract
Here are obstacles in the process of making software at PT. Hartono Technology Palace. At that time, every time a test was carried out on the software being developed, the company would find different results. This causes ineffective and inefficient software development processes. Problems at PT. Hartono Istana Teknologi was found because of the less use of standard software testing methods. That is why the test results are constantly changing, and the software development process cannot be completed quickly. This problem can be solved by applying the software testing method. This research will try to solve the problem by using 2 methods, trial and error, and integration. These two methods will be compared to determine which method is more effective in the software testing process at PT. Hartono Technology Palace. Several test scenarios are also designed to be applied in this study. As a final result, the trial and error method is the most effective method to be applied at PT. Hartono Istana Teknologi. The trial and error method is considered effective because the testing process is more thorough and in accordance with the established concept. While in the integration method, the testing process only focuses on testing data without paying attention to existing functions
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
M. Divo, “Optimasi Pencampuran Batubara Beda Kualitas Dengan Metode Trial And Error untuk Memenuhi Kriteria
Permintaan Konsumen di CV. Bara Mitra Kencana Kota Sawahlunto Sumatera Barat,” vol. 5, no. 1, p. 10.
P. Duval and M. Lomperski, “Control System Evolution and the Importance of Trial and Error,” Control Systems, p. 4,
K. Sekarsari and T. Tata, “Performance analysis of PID control in DC Brushless motor using trial and error method,”
IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 1098, no. 4, p. 042027, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1098/4/042027.
T. Imai, H. Masuhara, and T. Aotani, “Making live programming practical by bridging the gap between trial-and-error
development and unit testing,” in Companion Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on
Systems, Programming, Languages and Applications: Software for Humanity, Pittsburgh PA USA, Oct. 2015, pp. 11–12.
doi: 10.1145/2814189.2814193.
F. Ipate and M. Holcombe, “An integration testing method that is proved to find all faults,” International Journal of
Computer Mathematics, vol. 63, no. 3–4, pp. 159–178, Jan. 1997, doi: 10.1080/00207169708804559.
M. Jaffar-ur Rehman, F. Jabeen, A. Bertolino, and A. Polini, “Testing software components for integration: a survey
of issues and techniques,” Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 95–133, Jun. 2007, doi: 10.1002/stvr.357.
U. Linnenkugel and M. Mullerburg, “Test data selection criteria for (software) integration testing,” in Systems
Integration ’90. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Systems Integration, Morristown, NJ, USA, 1990,
pp. 709–717. doi: 10.1109/ICSI.1990.138737.
W. T. Tsai, Xiaoying Bai, R. Paul, Weiguang Shao, and V. Agarwal, “End-to-end integration testing design,” in 25th
Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference. COMPSAC 2001, Chicago, IL, USA, 2001, pp. 166–
doi: 10.1109/CMPSAC.2001.960613.
S. P. Shashank, P. Chakka, and D. V. Kumar, “A systematic literature survey of integration testing in component-
based software engineering,” in 2010 International Conference on Computer and Communication Technology (ICCCT),
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India, Sep. 2010, pp. 562–568. doi: 10.1109/ICCCT.2010.5640467.
Youngchul Kim and C. R. Carlson, “Scenario based integration testing for object-oriented software development,” in
Proceedings Eighth Asian Test Symposium (ATS’99), Shanghai, China, 1999, pp. 283–288. doi: 10.1109/ATS.1999.810764.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24167/proxies.v4i1.12434
Copyright (c) 2024 Proxies : Jurnal Informatika
View My Stats