You are reading the article China Is Testing A New Long updated in February 2024 on the website Daihoichemgio.com. We hope that the information we have shared is helpful to you. If you find the content interesting and meaningful, please share it with your friends and continue to follow and support us for the latest updates. Suggested March 2024 China Is Testing A New Long
In November 2024, a Chinese J-16 strike fighter test-fired a gigantic hypersonic missile, successfully destroying the target drone at a very long range.
Looking at takeoff photos, we estimate the missile is about 28 percent of the length of the J-16, which measures 22 meters (about 72 feet). The puts the missile at about 19 feet, and roughly 13 inches in diameter. The missile appears to have four tailfins. Reports are that the size would put into the category of a very long range air to air missile (VLRAAM) with ranges exceeding 300 km (roughly 186 miles), likely max out between 250 and 310 miles. (As a point of comparison, the smaller 13.8-foot, 15-inch-diameter Russian R-37 missile has a 249-mile range).
This is a big deal: this missile would easily outrange any American (or other NATO) air-to-air missile. Additionally, the VLRAAM’s powerful rocket engine will push it to Mach 6 speeds, which will increase the no escape zone (NEZ), that is the area where a target cannot outrun the missile, against even supersonic targets like stealth fighters.
The new, larger missile’s added value is not just in range. Another key feature: its large active electronically scanned (AESA) radar, which is used in the terminal phase of flight to lock onto the target. The AESA radar’s large size—about 300-400% larger than that of most long range air-to-air missiles—and digital adaptability makes it highly effective against distant and stealthy targets, and resilient against electronic countermeasures like jamming and spoofing.
The VLRAAM’s backup sensor is a infrared/electro-optical seeker that can identify and hone in on high-value targets like aerial tankers and airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) radar aircraft. The VLRAAM also uses lateral thrusters built into the rear for improving its terminal phase maneuverability when engaging agile targets like fighters.
This 2024 study in a Chinese scientific journal discusses the flight path and performance of a VLRAAM, which flies 15 km upward of its launching fighter to a 30 km altitude, and is guided by a combination of long range radars (like Chinese AEWC planes) and satellite navigation, before divebombing at hypersonic speeds onto enemy aircraft, including stealth fighters, stealth bombers and AEWC aircraft.
Interestingly, the ability to glide may be a key feature as well. A 2024 research paper by Zhang Hongyuan, Zheng Yuejing, and Shi Xiaorong of Beijing Institute of Control and Electronics Technology linked to the VLRAAM development suggests that the midcourse portion of the VLRAAM’s flight will occur at altitudes above 30 km (about 18.6 miles). Flying at such low pressure, low drag high altitudes would allow the VLRAAM to extend its range (similar to hypersonic gliders). The high altitude also makes it difficult for enemy aircraft and air defenses to shoot it down midflight. Finally, high altitude flight means that the VLRAAM would have a high angle of attack against lower flying targets, which reduces the response time for enemy evasive action.
Divine Eagle at War
The Divine Eagle is shown here in both offensive operations (providing targeting for smart bombs to strike enemy SAM, communications, bunkers and ballistic ICBMs) as well as defensive operations (detecting American stealth aircraft before they enter China airspace).
Another researched VLRAAM function is datalinking; the papers called for the VLRAAM to be embedded within a highly integrated combat networks. It is envisioned as just part of a larger wave of networked solutions aggregated through multiple Chinese systems. For example, a J-20 stealth fighter wouldn’t mount the missile (the VLRAAM is too large to fit in the J-20’s weapons bay), but could use its low observable features to fly relatively close in order to detect enemy assets like AEW&C aircraft (which are vital to gather battlespace data for manned and unmanned assets, but subsonic in speed and less able to evade missiles). Then before breaking off contact, the J-20 would signal a J-16 400 km (249 miles) away (outside the range of most air to air missiles) providing it the data needed to launch the VLRAAM at the target. This would offer China a longer range version of present U.S. tactics that involve using the fifth generation F-22 as a sensor for 4th generation fighters as the “shooters.”
The Future is Here
In operation, the VLRAAM will provide J-20 stealth fighters with long range “aerial artillery” to even the odds against numerically superior air forces, while giving new life to J-11 and J-16 fighters. It can also give J-15 carrier fighters a long range interception capability to defend Chinese naval forces.
The gains in range and speed of the VLRAAM pose another significant risk to the concepts of the U.S. military’s “Third Offset.” U.S. operations are highly dependent on assets like aerial tankers, dedicated electronic warfare aircraft, and AEW&C. For example, without aerial tankers, the relatively short range of the F-35s would become even more of a liability in long range operations in the South China Seas and Taiwan Straits. Similarly, without AEW&C aircraft, F-22s would have to use onboard radars more, raising their risk of detection. Even for stealthy tanker platforms like the planned MQ-25 Stingray drone and proposed KC-Z tanker will be vulnerable to VLRAAMs if detected by emerging dedicated anti-stealth systems such as the Divine Eagle drone and Yuanmeng airship.
By pushing the Chinese air defense threat bubble hundreds of miles out further, they also offer to turn the long range tables on the putative U.S. “Arsenal” Plane concept, a Pentagon plan to launch missiles from non-stealthy planes from afar. In sum, VLRAAM is not just a big missile, but a potential big deal for the future of air warfare.
You may also be interested in:
Come Look at China’s Coolest New Missiles
Chinese Air to Air Missile Hits Target, Spooks USAF General
Divine Eagle, China’s Enormous Stealth Hunting Drone, Takes Shape
Beyond the J-20: The Many Planes of China China Builds Its own ‘Wild Weasel’ to Suppress Air Defenses
You're reading China Is Testing A New Long
Greybox testing is a software testing approach that involves evaluating a software program with just a limited understanding of its underlying workings. Because it includes access to internal coding to develop test cases as white box testing and testing methods are done at the functionality level as black-box testing, it is a hybrid of the two.
GreyBox testing is frequently used to identify context-specific problems in online applications. For example, if a tester discovers a flaw during testing, he makes code modifications to fix the problem and then retests it in real-time. It focuses on all levels of any complicated software system in order to enhance testing coverage. It enables the testing of both the display layer and the core code structure. It is typically employed in integration and penetration testing.
Gray Box Testing is a software testing approach that is a hybrid of White Box Testing and Black Box Testing.
Internal structure (code) is known in White Box testing.
The internal structure (code) of Black Box testing is unclear.
The internal structure (code) of Grey Box Testing is only partially website, the Grey box tester can make changes to the HTML code to validate the problem. In this case, white box testing is performed by modifying the code, and black-box testing is performed concurrently as the tester tests the changes at the front end. Grey box testing is produced by combining the White box with the Black box.
#2) Grey box testers with knowledge of and access to the error code database, which includes the cause for each error code, may analyse error codes and explore the cause in more depth. Assume the webpage receives an error code of “Internal server error 500,” and the reason for this issue is listed in the table as a server error. Using this information, a tester may further investigate the problem and same time in order to improve the overall quality of the product.
It shortens the time required for the lengthy process of functional and non-functional testing.
It offers the developer enough time to remedy any product flaws.
It incorporates the user’s point of view rather than the designer’s or tester’s.
It entails a thorough evaluation of requirements and specification determination from the user’s point of view.Strategy for Gray Box Testing
It is not required for the tester to have access to the source code in order to do Gray box testing. A test is created using information about algorithms, architectures, internal states, and other high-level descriptions of program behavior.
Gray box testing can be done in a variety of chúng tôi employs a basic black box testing approach. It is based on the development of required test cases, and as a result, it establishes all of the criteria before the program is tested using the assertion technique.Grey box testing techniques Matrix Testing
Grey Box testing is the term for this type of testing. It lists all of the variables that are utilized in a program. Variables are the components in every program that allows values to move through it. It should be tailored to the requirements; otherwise, the program’s readability and speed would suffer. The matrix approach is a method for removing unneeded and uninitialized variables from a program by detecting utilized variables.Regression Testing
Regression testing is used to ensure that a change to one area of software does not have an unexpected or undesirable effect on another section of the product. Any defects discovered during confirmation testing were corrected, and that portion of the program began to function as planned; nevertheless, it is possible that the fixed flaw caused a new problem elsewhere in the software. Regression testing addresses these types of problems by employing testing techniques such as retesting hazardous use cases, retesting behind a firewall, retesting everything, and so on.Orthogonal Array Testing or OAT
The goal of this testing is to cover as much code as possible with as few test cases as possible. The test cases are written in such a manner that they cover the most code as well as the most GUI functionalities with the fewest amount of test cases.Pattern Testing
Pattern testing applies to software that is created by following the same pattern as prior software. The same kind of flaws is possible in this form of software. Pattern testing identifies the causes of failure so that they may be addressed in future software.
Greybox approach often uses automated software testing tools to carry out the testing procedure. Stubs and module drivers are supplied to a tester to alleviate the need for manual code development.
The following are the steps to do Grey box testing −
Step 1 − Make a list of all the inputs.
Step 2 − Determine the outcomes
Step 3 − Make a list of the key routes.
Step 4 − Determine the Subfunctions
Step 5 − Create subfunction inputs.
Step 6 − Develop Subfunction Outputs
Step 7 − Run the Subfunctions test case.
Step 8 − Check that the Subfunctions result is valid.
Step 9 − Repeat steps 4–8 for each additional Subfunction.
Step 10 − Carry on with steps 7 and 8 for the remaining Subfunctions.
GUI related, security related, database related, browser related, operational system related, and so on are examples of test cases for grey box testing.Gray Box Testing’s Benefits
The software’s quality is improving.
This method focuses on the user’s perception.
Developers gain from grey box testing since they have more time to resolve bugs.
Grey box testing combines both black box and white box testing, giving you the best of both worlds.
Grey box testers don’t need to have extensive programming expertise in order to evaluate a product.
Integration testing benefits from this testing method.
This testing approach ensures that the developer and the tester are on the same page.
This approach may be used to test complex apps and situations.
This kind of testing is non-intrusive.Gray Box Testing’s Drawbacks
Grey box testing does not allow for complete white box testing because a source cannot be accessed.
This testing approach makes it harder to link problems in a distributed system.
It is difficult to create test cases for grey box testing.
Access to code path traversal is likewise restricted as a result of limited access.Gray Box Testing Difficulties
When a component under test fails in some way, the continuing operation may be terminated.
When a test runs completely but the substance of the result is wrong.Summary
Grey box testing can minimize the overall cost of system faults and prevent them from spreading further.
Grey box testing is best suited for GUI, Functional Testing, security assessment, online applications, web services, and other similar applications.Grey box Testing Methodologies −
OAT or Orthogonal Array Testing
Pattern TestingFrequently Asked Questions
Q #1) In software testing, what is grey box testing?
Answer − Grey box testing is used to eliminate any faults caused by difficulties with the application’s internal structure. This testing method combines Black box and White box testing techniques.
Q #2) Provide an example of grey box testing.
Answer − Both black box and white box testing are included in grey box testing. All of the specific documentation and requirements are available to the tester. For example, if a website’s link isn’t working, it may be examined and updated immediately in HTML and confirmed in real time.
China has now more internet users than the US. That was one of the items that made its way into almost all news media in the middle of March. Linking China and the internet makes a newsworthy item these days. More about that later on. First look at what Google has changed about their interface, some mobile search statistics, the new Baidu Instant Messenger and Facebook is coming to the Chinese mainland.
Google.cn has a new user interface
The Korean version of Google was the first, sometime ago already, that was pimped with new buttons under the search box. Now chúng tôi has followed (Google Japan also has a new look but slightly different then the Chinese version) and shows animated shortcuts to video search, images, news, maps, blog search, Rebang and the directory page Daohang.
Two of these features need a further introduction.
On Rebang (hot list) you can find metrics about the most popular keywords, including hot keywords for specific categories like real estate, entertainment and more.
Localizing the chúng tôi page and creating direct access to properties like Daohang is intended to better play into the Chinese users preferences.
Mobile search Stats
There were at the end of February 2008 more than 565 million mobile phone users according to a statement from the industry and information ministry. I don’t know the number of users that have access to the internet with their phone but it’s an educated guess that that number is increasing rapidly. From the search point of view it is interesting to know what people are searching for on their mobile.
Google.cn offers on the aforementioned Rebang statistics about the 50 most frequently searched keywords as well as the top 50 mobile image searches. The statistics are daily updated and the searches are for games, celebrities (including basketball players) and not surprisingly mobile phone related stuff.
Baidu Hi Messenger
The search engine Baidu has started its public test with a select group of users for the Baidu Hi Messenger, a new addition to the Baidu tree.
The current market leader by afar is Tencent’s QQ Messenger. In their 2007 fourth quarter and Annual Results they say they have now more than 300 million active users. I don’t challenge the fact that they’re the market leader but I have to add here that the number of 300 million active users sounds slightly overestimated as there aren’t that many internet users yet in China. From what I hear is that many users have more then one account
Number 2 is MSN Messenger which has, according to Analysys Intl., more than 19 million users. MSN messenger is said to be more popular in the working environment. Other players in the IM market are Sina UC (4.1%), Fetion (China mobile) (3.7%) and Aliwangwang (Alibaba) (3.1%).
The first impressions of bloggers and beta testers Tangos and Mobinode are for the most positive and considering Baidu’s domination in the Chinese internet market I wouldn’t be surprised if Baidu Hi will start challenging QQ and MSN at some point in the future.
Baidu announced that some 1 million users have already tested the new IM, the big question here is how many will still be active after 6 months as CWR puts it.
The downside of yet another IM tool that is based on a proprietary protocol is, that it’s a hassle to deal with so many different chat applications that don’t interact. Given that Chinese users are pretty apt at online multitasking that might probably be more my problem though.
To learn more about the IM market in China and QQ in particular I can recommend reading this report.
Facebook coming to China
Facebook has started hiring staff for its China branch according to Inway. Added to this, Facebook users in China have received messages on their main pages asking them to help them out with translating the site into Chinese. The big question, as with so many foreign internet companies trying to get a foothold in China, is whether Facebook will succeed.
Jeremy Goldkorn from Danwei, shares his opinion in the Timesonline:
I don’t think they’ll fare well – there’s not a single foreign internet company that has managed to dominate its sector,” and adds “It’s also a cultural thing,” Mr Goldkorn said. “Facebook is based on people using their real names and being honest, whereas the Chinese like the ability to be anonymous. E-mail addresses will rarely include a person’s name, and on bulletin boards a lot of the posts are anonymous, so I’m not sure the Facebook model will work.
In addition to this there’s also the issue of censorship. Will the content, the groups and the discussions be monitored by Facebook themselves or will they wait till the censor kicks in. In other words, how localized will the Chinese version be.
Among the local competition that Facebook will face are QQ, Xiaonei and zhanzuo
China user Statistics Bait
As I mentioned in the introduction I was impressed by the China bait of a research company in Beijing. They released a press release telling the world that China has overtaken the US in the number of Internet Users and it’s an example of very smart pr.
What they did was opening their excel sheet and calculate the growth percentage between the last 2 reports, being 29%. This results in an expected 272 million users by July 2007. The last official report by the CNNIC said there were 210 million users. The difference is 62 million in 6 months. A monthly growth of 10.37 Million.
Outcome, mid March there were more than 220 million internet users in China and as the US had 216 million users at the end of 2007 according to Nielsen, this made that, following these calculations, China now has the most internet users in the world.
The news was picked up by all the mainstream media and I’m sure it raised their profile.
I have previously written about the fact that the CNNIC changed their definition of what constitutes a Chinese internet user. Previously it were “Chinese citizens aged 6 and above who averagely use the Internet at least one hour per week”., but since the report from June 2007 (2007 – 1 in the chart) it’s someone who has used the internet in the past half year.
This of course has influenced the total numbers of internet users. As a small excel exercise I have made a chart comparing the previously (before the new definition was used) half year on half year growth percentages and the current growth percentages.
Taking the old growth scenario, China will overtake the US sometime in 2009. Taking the new scenario the conclusion here is that China will have more internet users in 2011 than inhabitants. Wouldn’t that make for a nice headline?
It’s not scientific at all of course as there will come a moment the growth will slow down and there’s no doubt there are a lot of users in China but it’s something to keep in mind if you make a prognosis.
Some more tidbits
Baidu voice search launched again
Firefox starts campaign to seize market share.
Everything you always wanted to know about penetrating the Chinese firewall.
Alimama, Alibaba’s online ad exchange, challenges Baidu and Google by cutting its fees.
That’s it for now from Shanghai, China
What is System Integration Testing?
System Integration Testing is defined as a type of software testing carried out in an integrated hardware and software environment to verify the behavior of the complete system. It is testing conducted on a complete, integrated system to evaluate the system’s compliance with its specified requirement.
System Integration Testing (SIT) is performed to verify the interactions between the modules of a software system. It deals with the verification of the high and low-level software requirements specified in the Software Requirements Specification/Data and the Software Design Document. It also verifies a software system’s coexistence with others and tests the interface between modules of the software application. In this type of testing, modules are first tested individually and then combined to make a system. For Example, software and/or hardware components are combined and tested progressively until the entire system has been integrated.Why do System Integration Testing?
It helps to detect Defect early
Earlier feedback on the acceptability of the individual module will be available
Scheduling of Defect fixes is flexible, and it can be overlapped with development
Correct data flow
Correct control flow
Correct memory usage
Correct with software requirementsHow to do System Integration Testing
It’s a systematic technique for constructing the program structure while conducting tests to uncover errors associated with interfacing.
Correction of such errors is difficult because isolation causes is complicated by the vast expansion of the entire program. Once these errors are rectified and corrected, a new one will appear, and the process continues seamlessly in an endless loop. To avoid this situation, another approach is used, Incremental Integration. We will see more detail about an incremental approach later in the tutorial.
There are some incremental methods like the integration tests are conducted on a system based on the target processor. The methodology used is Black Box Testing. Either bottom-up or top-down integration can be used.
Test cases are defined using the high-level software requirements only.
Software integration may also be achieved largely in the host environment, with units specific to the target environment continuing to be simulated in the host. Repeating tests in the target environment for confirmation will again be necessary.
Confirmation tests at this level will identify environment-specific problems, such as errors in memory allocation and de-allocation. The practicality of conducting software integration in the host environment will depend on how much target specific functionality is there. For some embedded systems the coupling with the target environment will be very strong, making it impractical to conduct software integration in the host environment.
Large software developments will divide software integration into a number of levels. The lower levels of software integration could be based predominantly in the host environment,with later levels of software integration becoming more dependent on the target environment.
Note: If software only is being tested then it is called Software Software Integration Testing [SSIT] and if both hardware and software are being tested, then it is called Hardware Software Integration Testing [HSIT].Entry and Exit Criteria for Integration Testing
Usually while performing Integration Testing, ETVX (Entry Criteria, Task, Validation, and Exit Criteria) strategy is used.Entry Criteria:
Completion of Unit TestingInputs:
Software Requirements Data
Software Design Document
Software Verification Plan
Software Integration DocumentsActivities:
Based on the High and Low-level requirements create test cases and procedures
Combine low-level modules builds that implement a common functionality
Develop a test harness
Test the build
Once the test is passed, the build is combined with other builds and tested until the system is integrated as a whole.
Re-execute all the tests on the target processor-based platform, and obtain the resultsExit Criteria:
Successful completion of the integration of the Software module on the target Hardware
Correct performance of the software according to the requirements specifiedOutputs
Integration test reports
Software Test Cases and Procedures [SVCP].
Hardware Software Integration Testing
Hardware Software Integration Testing is a process of testing Computer Software Components (CSC) for high-level functionalities on the target hardware environment. The goal of hardware/software integration testing is to test the behavior of developed software integrated on the hardware component.
Requirement based Hardware-Software Integration Testing
The aim of requirements-based hardware/software integration testing is to make sure that the software in the target computer will satisfy the high-level requirements. Typical errors revealed by this testing method includes:
Hardware/software interfaces errors
Violations of software partitioning.
Inability to detect failures by built-in test
Incorrect response to hardware failures
Feedback loops incorrect behavior
Incorrect or improper control of memory management hardware
Data bus contention problem
Incorrect operation of mechanism to verify the compatibility and correctness of field loadable software
Hardware Software Integration deals with the verification of the high-level requirements. All tests at this level are conducted on the target hardware.
Black box testing is the primary testing methodology used at this level of testing.
Define test cases from the high-level requirements only
A test must be executed on production standard hardware (on target)
Things to consider when designing test cases for HW/SW Integration
Correct acquisition of all data by the software
Scaling and range of data as expected from hardware to software
Correct output of data from software to hardware
Data within specifications (normal range)
Data outside specifications (abnormal range)
Correct memory usage (addressing, overlaps, etc.)
Note: For interrupt testing, all interrupts will be verified independently from initial request through full servicing and onto completion. Test cases will be specifically designed in order to adequately test interrupts.Software to Software Integration Testing
It is the testing of the Computer Software Component operating within the host/target computer
Environment, while simulating the entire system [other CSC’s], and on the high-level functionality.
It focuses on the behavior of a CSC in a simulated host/target environment. The approach used for Software Integration can be an incremental approach ( top-down, a bottom-up approach or a combination of both).Incremental Approach
Incremental testing is a way of integration testing. In this type of testing method, you first test each module of the software individually and then continue testing by appending other modules to it then another and so on.
Incremental integration is the contrast to the big bang approach. The program is constructed and tested in small segments, where errors are easier to isolate and correct. Interfaces are more likely to be tested completely, and a systematic test approach may be applied.
There are two types of Incremental testing
Top down approach
Bottom Up approachTop-Down Approach
Starting with the main control module, the modules are integrated by moving downward through the control hierarchy
Sub-modules to the main control module are incorporated into the structure either in a breadth-first manner or depth-first manner.
Depth-first integration integrates all modules on a major control path of the structure as displayed in the following diagram:
The module integration process is done in the following manner:
The main control module is used as a test driver, and the stubs are substituted for all modules directly subordinate to the main control module.
The subordinate stubs are replaced one at a time with actual modules depending on the approach selected (breadth first or depth first).
Tests are executed as each module is integrated.
On completion of each set of tests, another stub is replaced with a real module on completion of each set of tests
To make sure that new errors have not been introduced Regression Testing may be performed.
The process continues from step2 until the entire program structure is built. The top-down strategy sounds relatively uncomplicated, but in practice, logistical problems arise.
The most common of these problems occur when processing at low levels in the hierarchy is required to adequately test upper levels.
Stubs replace low-level modules at the beginning of top-down testing and, therefore no significant data can flow upward in the program structure.Challenges Tester might face:
Delay many tests until stubs are replaced with actual modules.
Develop stubs that perform limited functions that simulate the actual module.
Integrate the software from the bottom of the hierarchy upward.
Note: The first approach causes us to lose some control over correspondence between specific tests and incorporation of specific modules. This may result in difficulty determining the cause of errors which tends to violate the highly constrained nature of the top-down approach.
The second approach is workable but can lead to significant overhead, as stubs become increasingly complex.Bottom-up Approach
Bottom-up integration begins construction and testing with modules at the lowest level in the program structure. In this process, the modules are integrated from the bottom to the top.
In this approach processing required for the modules subordinate to a given level is always available and the need for the stubs is eliminated.
This integration test process is performed in a series of four steps
Low-level modules are combined into clusters that perform a specific software sub-function.
A driver is written to coordinate test case input and output.
The cluster or build is tested.
Drivers are removed, and clusters are combined moving upward in the program structure.
As integration moves upward, the need for separate test drivers lessons. In fact, if the top two levels of program structure are integrated top-down, the number of drivers can be reduced substantially, and integration of clusters is greatly simplified. Integration follows the pattern illustrated below. As integration moves upward, the need for separate test drivers lessons.
Note: If the top two levels of program structure are integrated Top-down, the number of drivers can be reduced substantially, and the integration of builds is greatly simplified.Big Bang Approach
In this approach, all modules are not integrated until and unless all the modules are ready. Once they are ready, all modules are integrated and then its executed to know whether all the integrated modules are working or not.
In this approach, it is difficult to know the root cause of the failure because of integrating everything at once.
Also, there will be a high chance of occurrence of the critical bugs in the production environment.
This approach is adopted only when integration testing has to be done at once.Summary:
Integration is performed to verify the interactions between the modules of a software system. It helps to detect defect early
Integration testing can be done for Hardware-Software or Hardware-Hardware Integration
Integration testing is done by two methods
Big bang approach
While performing Integration Testing generally ETVX (Entry Criteria, Task, Validation, and Exit Criteria) strategy is used.
A recent column by Chris Pickering suggested that Enterprise Architecture (EA) be allowed to rest in peace — or die as a concept or approach. His premise is that it either is no longer, or possibly never was, a valid approach to anything.
While many an EA effort failed to provide expected value, this is the case of most transformation approaches when they were applied improperly — including business process reengineering and “big bang” ERP.
Clearly Mr. Pickering brings a valuable perspective to us with his experiences of EA — and he is correct that all change initiatives must provide near-term value to be sustainable. This is one of the reasons why Six Sigma is popular; it provides rapid and quantitative value.
Many, however, fail to understand EA. To understand EA, one must understand the roots of EA — IBM’s Business Systems Planning methodology (BSP), the precursor to most IT strategic planning approaches.
After the publishing of BSP, John Zachman produced a paper in the IBM Systems Journal titled “A Framework for IT Architecture,” which included a 3-by-6 matrix of perspectives and interrogatories. This matrix was intended to describe the notion that different stakeholders within an organization care about different things even though they all work for the same organization, a notion now embodied in the IEEE 1471-2000 standard, which is gaining much acceptance in the IT community.
Zachman’s matrix, intentionally called a “Framework for IT Architecture,” was intended to graphically represent how many of the artifacts or models of BSP linked together to bring about alignment between strategic intent and operational reality. It was called a “Framework” because it was intended to be a frame of reference or a structure that pulls related parts into a whole.
Toward IT Anarchy
Recognizing that EA is a component of BSP, to pronounce EA dead is to pronounce BSP dead, and BSP is the foundation for IT strategy and planning. Thus, to take Mr. Pickering’s argument to the extreme, we should let IT strategy and planning die, allowing IT anarchy within organizations in a world that is rapidly becoming more cost conscious, less secure, more regulated, and more connected.
Non sequitur? Not really. EA, by most interpretations, is a process of alignment between business and IT. It is a process of decomposing loose business strategies and requirements into meaningful operational design — of systems, of processes, of information, and of infrastructure. Often this EA manifests itself as sets of models and diagrams. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a model is worth a million! Unfortunately, within the English language most verbs can also be nouns, so EA, the process, is often confused with EA, the models.
BSP was developed in the ’70s to provide a mechanism to ensure that when an organization invested in IT, it invested optimally and in support of its strategy. BSP also helped to ensure that processes were fixed before they were automated. We all know that when bad processes are automated, things just get worse at a faster pace.
Up until the early ’90s, EA planning was a viable approach in its initial instantiation. As software evolved, becoming commercially available in the late ’80s, it forced commoditization of hardware. The mantra changed from “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” to “let the software drive the hardware decisions.”
This philosophical change also led to a change in the way in which EA planning should have been performed. Doing future-state 5th normal form E-R diagrams for the entire enterprise was no longer an appropriate EA planning technique. Why? As the software market began to mature in the ’90s, a rash of enterprise products emerged, all with their own data models. These included ERP, SCM and CRM. Those who abandoned EA planning altogether, however, were those feeling the pains of having multiple enterprise applications installed, replete with overlapping functional support and overlapping data sets.
Alas, while EA was no silver bullet, neither were the enterprise class of commercially available applications, particularly when installed devoid of sound planning and control. It is common to see organizations with multiple ERP systems. By having more than one ERP, doesn’t that fundamentally remove the “E” from ERP?
Our studies show, however, that those with governed enterprise architecture standards in place during this timeframe enjoyed a 30% reduction in end-user computing costs.
What is Non Destructive Software Testing?
Non Destructive Testing is a software testing type that involves testing and interacting with the software application correctly. In other words, Non Destructive Software Testing (NDT) can also be called Positive Testing or Happy path testing. It gives the expected results and proves that the software application is behaving as expected.
Non Destructive Software Testing Example
To perform Non destructive testing in the above example, enter numeric characters in the username textbox. As such we have entered the numeric character, the desired outcome will be positive.
To perform Non destructive testing in the above example, enter numeric characters in the username textbox. As such we have entered the numeric character, the desired outcome will be positive.
In this tutorial, you will learn-Why do Non Destructive Software Testing (NDT)?
The major benefit of NDT method is that it results in improved quality of software and bugs get fixed.
To demonstrate that software functions are working according to the specification.
The verify performance requirement has been met
To verify that the requirements of end users are met
To check the small section of code or functionality is working as expected and not breaking the related functionality.When Non Destructive Testing (NDT) is Performed?
It is also the first form of testing that a tester would perform on an application.(i.e., at the initial stage of SDLC)
Non destructive testing is usually done when we do not have enough time for testing.Test Strategy for Non Destructive Testing
Approach to Non Destructive testing should be positive.
The intention of NDT technique is to prove that an application will work on giving valid input data.
There is no special requirement to perform Non destructive testing.
Best practice for Non destructive testing is to check whether the system does, what it is supposed to do.
Test Strategy for Non Destructive Software TestingExamples of Non Destructive Testing
An application has 5 modules viz, login page, home page, user detail page, new user creation and task creation, etc.
Suppose we have a bug in the login page, the username field accepts less than six alpha-numeric characters. This is against the set requirements which state that username should not accept less than six characters. So in the above scenario, it is a bug.
Now the bug is reported to the development team, and it is fixed and again sent back to the testing team. The testing team not only checks the login page where the defect is fixed but also tests the other modules as well. While testing all the modules, it performs the Non-destructive type of testing, just to check the whole application is working properly.Summary
Software Testing is a process used to reveal defects in software, to establish a specified degree of quality.
Non Destructive Testing (NDT) is a software testing type that involves testing and interacting with the software application correctly.
The major benefit of NDT method is that it results in improved quality of software and bugs get fixed.
Non destructive testing is usually done when we do not have enough time for testing.
The intention of NDT technique is to prove that an application will work on giving valid input data.
Update the detailed information about China Is Testing A New Long on the Daihoichemgio.com website. We hope the article's content will meet your needs, and we will regularly update the information to provide you with the fastest and most accurate information. Have a great day!