Boundary Value Analysis

Functional Testing Part 1
Boundary Value Testing Equivalence Class Testing
Agenda
Boundary Value Testing
Boundary Value Analysis
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Special Value Testing
Examples
Generalizing Boundary Value Analysis

Limitations of Boundary Value Analysis
Test Cases for the Triangle Problem

Test Cases for the NextDate Problem
Test Cases for the Commission Problem
Guidelines for Boundary value Testing
Equivalence Class Testing
Equivalence Classes
Weak Equivalence Class Testing

Strong Equivalence Class Testing
Traditional Equivalence Class Testing
Equivalence Class Test Cases for the Triangle Problem

Equivalence Class Test Cases for the NextDate Function
Equivalence Class Test Cases for the Commission Problem
Guidelines and Observations
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


F(x1, x2), a x1 b, c x2 d
Boundary value analysis focuses on the
boundary of the input space to identify test
cases
The rationale behind boundary value
testing is that errors tend to occur near the
extreme values of an input variable
e.g. loop conditions (< instead of ), counters

4
Basic idea: use input variable values at their

minimum (min), just above the minimum (min+),
a nominal value (nom), just below their maximum
(max-), and at their maximum (max)
Single fault assumption in reliability theory:
failures are only rarely the result of the
simultaneous occurrence of two (or more) faults.
The boundary value analysis test cases are
obtained by holding the values of all but one
variable at their nominal values, and letting that
variable assume its extreme values
5

F(x1, x2)
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


By the number of variables
For n variables 4n + 1 test cases
By the kinds of ranges, depends on the type (nature) of

the variables
Variables have discrete, bounded values
Variables have no explicit bounds
Create artificial bounds

e.g. triangle problem
Boolean variables
e.g. NextDate function, commission problem
Decision table-based testing
Logical variables (bound to a value or another logic variable)
e.g. PIN and transaction type in SATM System
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


Boundary value analysis works well when

the program to be tested is a function of
several independent variables that
represent bounded physical quantities
e.g. NextDate test cases are inadequate (little
stress on February, dependencies among
month, day, and year)
e.g. variables refer to physical quantities,
such as temperature, air speed, load etc.
10
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


11
Robustness Testing
Simple extension of boundary value analysis

In addition to the five boundary value analysis
values of a variable, see what happens when the
extrema are exceeded with a value slightly
greater than the maximum (max+) and a value
slightly less than the minimum (min-)
Focuses on the expected outputs
e.g. exceeding load capacity of a public elevator
Forces attention on exception handling

12
Robustness Testing
13
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


14
Worst Case Testing
Worst case analysis: more than one variable has an

extreme value
Procedure:
More thorough than boundary value analysis

Represents more effort
For each variable create the set <min, min+, nom, max-, max>
Take the Cartesian product of these sets to generate test cases
For n variables 5n test cases (as opposed to 4n+1 test cases

for boundary value analysis)
Follows the generalization pattern

Same limitations
Robust worst case testing can be applied
15
Worst Case Testing
16
Worst Case Testing

Robust Worst Case Test
Cases (function of two
variables)
x2
c
a
x1
17
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


18
The most widely practiced form of functional

testing
Most intuitive, least uniform, no guidelines
The tester uses his/her domain knowledge,
experience with similar programs, ad hoc
testing
It is dependent on the abilities of the tester
Even though it is highly subjective, it often
results in a set of test cases which is more
effective in revealing faults than the test sets
generated by the other methods
19
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


20

Boundary Value Analysis Test Cases
min = 1
min+ = 2
nom = 100
max- = 199
max = 200
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
a
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1
2
199
200
b
100
100
100
100
100
1
2
199
200
100
100
100
100
c
1
2
100
199
200
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Expected Output
Isosceles
Isosceles
Equilateral
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
Isosceles
Isosceles
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
Isosceles
Isosceles
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
21

Worst Case Test Cases (60 of 125)
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
b
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
100
100
100
100
100
199
199
199
199
199
200
200
200
200
200
1
1
1
1
1
c
1
2
100
199
200
1
2
100
199
200
1
2
100
199
200
1
2
100
199
200
1
2
100
199
200
1
2
100
199
200
Expected Output
Equilateral
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Case
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
a
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
b
2
2
2
2
2
100
100
100
100
100
199
199
199
199
199
200
200
200
200
200
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
c
1
2
100
199
200
1
2
100
199
200
1
2
100
199
200
1
2
100
199
200
1
2
100
199
200
1
2
100
199
200
Expected Output
Isosceles
Equilateral
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Isosceles
Scalene
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Scalene
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
Isosceles
Not a Triangle
Not a Triangle
22
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


23

Boundary Value Analysis Test Cases
month
min = 1
min+ = 2
nom = 6
max- = 11
max = 12
day
min = 1
min+ = 2
nom = 15
max- = 30
max = 31
year
min = 1812
min+ = 1813
nom = 1912
max- = 2011
max = 2012
Case month day

1
6
15
2
6
15
3
6
15
4
6
15
5
6
15
6
6
1
7
6
2
8
6
30
9
6
31
10
1
15
11
2
15
12
11
15
13
12
15
year
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
Expected Output
June 16, 1812
June 16, 1813
June 16, 1912
June 16, 2011
June 16, 2012
June 2, 1912
June 3, 1912
July 1, 1912
error
January 16, 1912
February 16, 1912
November 16, 1912
December 16, 1912
24

Worst Case Test Cases (60 of 125)
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
month
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
day
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
15
15
15
15
15
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
1
1
1
1
1
year
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
Expected Output
January 2, 1812
January 2, 1813
January 2, 1912
January 2, 2011
January 2, 2012
January 3, 1812
January 3, 1813
January 3, 1912
January 3, 2011
January 3, 2012
January 16, 1812
January 16, 1813
January 16, 1912
January 16, 2011
January 16, 2012
January 31, 1812
January 31, 1813
January 31, 1912
January 31, 2011
January 31, 2012
February 1, 1812
February 1, 1813
February 1, 1912
February 1, 2011
February 1, 2012
February 2, 1812
February 2, 1813
February 2, 1912
February 2, 2011
February 2, 2012
Case
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
month
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
day
2
2
2
2
2
15
15
15
15
15
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
year
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
1812
1813
1912
2011
2012
Expected Output
February 3, 1812
February 3, 1813
February 3, 1912
February 3, 2011
February 3, 2012
February 16, 1812
February 16, 1813
February 16, 1912
February 16, 2011
February 16, 2012
error
error
error
error
error
error
error
error
error
error
June 2, 1812
June 2, 1813
June 2, 1912
June 2, 2011
June 2, 2012
June 3, 1812
June 3, 1813
June 3, 1912
June 3, 2011
June 3, 2012
25
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


26
13 Boundary Value Analysis Test Cases

125 Worst Case Test Cases
Boundary values for the output range, especially
near the threshold points of $1000 and $1800
Part of the reason for using the output range to
determine test cases is that test cases from the
input range are almost all in the 20% zone
We want to find input variable combinations that
stress the boundary values: $100, $1000,
$1800, and $7800
27

Output Boundary Value Analysis Test Cases
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
locks
1
1
1
2
5
10
10
9
10
10
10
11
14
18
18
17
18
18
18
19
48
70
70
69
70
stocks
1
1
2
1
5
10
9
10
10
10
11
10
14
18
17
18
18
18
19
18
48
80
79
80
80
barrels
1
2
1
1
5
9
10
10
10
11
10
10
14
17
18
18
18
19
18
18
48
89
90
90
90
sales
100
125
130
145
500
975
970
955
1000
1025
1030
1045
1400
1775
1770
1755
1800
1825
1830
1845
4800
7775
7770
7755
7800
commission
10
12.5
13
14.5
50
97.5
97
95.5
100
103.75
104.5
106.75
160
216.25
215.5
213.25
220
225
226
229
820
1415
1414
1411
1420
comment
output minimum
output minimum +
output minimum +
output minimum +
midpoint
border point border point border point border point
border point +
border point +
border point +
midpoint
border point border point border point border point
border point +
border point +
border point +
midpoint
output maximum output maximum output maximum output maximum
28
Test case 9 is the $1000 border point

If we tweak the input variables we get
values just below and just above the
border
Form of special value testing based on
mathematical insight
Output Special Value Test Cases
Case
1
2
3
locks
10
18
18
stocks
11
17
19
barrels
9
19
17
sales
1005
1795
1805
commission
100.75
219.25
221
comment
border point +
border point border point +
29
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


30
Equivalence Classes
Motivations
Have a sense of complete testing

Avoid redundancy
Equivalence classes form a partition of a set, where partition refers

to a collection of mutually disjoint subsets whose union is the entire
set (completeness, non-redundancy)
The idea is to identify test cases by using one element from each
equivalence class
treated the same traversing the same execution path
The key is the choice of the equivalence relation that determines the
classes
second guess the likely implementation , and think about the functional
manipulations that must somehow be present in the implementation
31
Equivalence Classes
Program under consideration:

Function of variables a, b, c
Input domain consists of sets A, B, and C
A = A1 A2 A3
B = B1 B2 B3 B4
C = C1 C2
a1 A1, b3 B3, c2 C2
32
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


33
Accomplished by using one variable from

each equivalence class in a test case
A = A1 A2 A3
B = B1 B2 B3 B4
C = C1 C2
a1 A1, b3 B3, c2 C2
Test Case
WE1
WE2
WE3
WE4
a
a1
a2
a3
a1
b
b1
b2
b3
b4
c
c1
c2
c1
c2
Number of weak equivalence class test

cases = number of classes in the partition
with the largest number of subsets
34
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


35
Based on the Cartesian

Product of the partition
subsets
A x B x C = 3 x 4 x 2 = 24
elements
Equivalence relations can
be defined on the output
range of the program
function being tested
Test Case
SE1
SE2
SE3
SE4
SE5
SE6
SE7
SE8
SE9
SE10
SE11
SE12
SE13
SE14
SE15
SE16
SE17
SE18
SE19
SE20
SE21
SE22
SE23
SE24
a
a1
a1
a1
a1
a1
a1
a1
a1
a2
a2
a2
a2
a2
a2
a2
a2
a3
a3
a3
a3
a3
a3
a3
a3
b
b1
b1
b2
b2
b3
b3
b4
b4
b1
b1
b2
b2
b3
b3
b4
b4
b1
b1
b2
b2
b3
b3
b4
b4
c
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
36
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


37
Defines equivalence classes in terms of validity

Commission problem
Valid inputs: 1 lock 70, 1 stock 80,

1 barrel 90
Invalid inputs: lock < 1, lock > 70, stock < 1,
stock > 80, barrel < 1, barrel > 90
For valid inputs, use one value from each valid

class (like weak equivalence testing)
For invalid inputs, a test case will have one
invalid value and the remaining values will all be
valid (single failure)
38
Problems:
Very often, the specification does not define
what the expected output for an invalid test
case should be a lot of time spent in
defining expected outputs
Strongly typed languages eliminate the need
for the consideration of invalid inputs
39
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


40
Equivalence Class Test Cases for the

Triangle Problem
Outputs: Not a Triangle, Scalene, Isosceles, Equilateral

Easier to identify output (range) equivalence classes
R1 = {<a, b, c> : the triangle with sides a, b, and c is equilateral}

R2 = {<a, b, c> : the triangle with sides a, b, and c is isosceles}
R3 = {<a, b, c> : the triangle with sides a, b, and c is scalene}
R4 = {<a, b, c> : sides a, b, and c do not form a triangle}
Test Case
OE1
OE2
OE3
OE4
a
5
2
3
4
b
5
2
4
1
c
5
3
5
2
Expected Output
Equilateral
Isosceles
Scalene
Not a Triangle
41

Triangle Problem
Input (domain) equivalence classes

D1 = {<a, b, c> : a = b = c}
D2 = {<a, b, c> : a = b, a c}
D3 = {<a, b, c> : a = c, a b}
D4 = {<a, b, c> : b = c, a b}
D5 = {<a, b, c> : a b, a c, b c}
// D6 = {<a, b, c> : a b + c}
D6 = {<a, b, c> : a = b + c}
D6 = {<a, b, c> : a > b + c}
// D7 = {<a, b, c> : b a + c}
D7 = {<a, b, c> : b = a + c}
D7 = {<a, b, c> : b > a + c}
// D8 = {<a, b, c> : c a + b}
D8 = {<a, b, c> : c = a + b}
D8 = {<a, b, c> : c > a + b}
42
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


43

NextDate Function
Input variables
1 month 12
1 day 31
1812 year 2012
Traditional approach
Valid equivalence classes
M1 = { month : 1 month 12 }
D1 = { day : 1 day 31 }
Y1 = { year : 1812 year 2012 }
Invalid equivalence classes
M2 = { month : month < 1 }

M3 = { month : month > 12 }
D2 = { day : day < 1 }
D3 = { day : day >31 }
Y2 = { year : year < 1812 }
Y3 = {year : year > 2012 }
Case ID
TE1
TE2
TE3
TE4
TE5
TE6
TE7
Month
6
-1
13
6
6
6
6
Day
15
15
15
-1
32
15
15
Year
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1811
2013
Expected Output
6/16/1912
invalid input
invalid input
invalid input
invalid input
invalid input
invalid input
44

NextDate Function
Traditional approach is deficient because it treats the

elements of a class at the valid/invalid level
Different approach: What must be done to an input date?
M1 = { month: month has 30 days }
M2 = { month: month has 31 days }
M3 = { month: month is February }
D1 = { day: 1 day 28 }
D2 = { day: day = 29 }
D3 = { day: day = 30 }
D4 = { day: day = 31 }
Y1 = { year: year = 1900 }
Y2 = { year: 1812 year 2012 AND (year 1900)
AND (year mod 4 = 0) }
Y3 = { year: 1812 year 2012 AND (year mod 4 0) }
Not a perfect set of equivalence classes!!!
45

NextDate Function
Weak equivalence class test cases
Case ID
WE1
WE2
WE3
WE4
Month
6
7
2
6
Day
14
29
30
31
Year
1900
1912
1913
1900
Expected Output
6/15/1900
7/30/1912
invalid input
invalid input
Strong equivalence class test cases

Case ID
SE1
SE2
SE3
SE4
SE5
SE6
SE7
SE8
SE9
SE10
SE11
SE12
SE13
SE14
SE15
SE16
SE17
SE18
Month
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Day
14
14
14
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
31
14
14
14
29
29
29
Year
1900
1912
1913
1900
1912
1913
1900
1912
1913
1900
1912
1913
1900
1912
1913
1900
1912
1913
Expected Output
6/15/1900
6/15/1912
6/15/1913
6/30/1900
6/30/1912
6/30/1913
07/01/1900
07/01/1912
07/01/1913
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
7/15/1900
7/15/1912
7/15/1913
7/30/1900
7/30/1912
7/30/1913
Case ID
SE19
SE20
SE21
SE22
SE23
SE24
SE25
SE26
SE27
SE28
SE29
SE30
SE31
SE32
SE33
SE34
SE35
SE36
Month
7
7
7
7
7
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Day
30
30
30
31
31
31
14
14
14
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
31
Year
1900
1912
1913
1900
1912
1913
1900
1912
1913
1900
1912
1913
1900
1912
1913
1900
1912
1913
Expected Output
7/31/1900
7/31/1912
7/31/1913
08/01/1900
08/01/1912
08/01/1913
2/15/1900
2/15/1912
2/15/1913
ERROR
03/01/1912
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
46
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


47

Commission Problem
Input Domain Equivalence Classes
Lock
Stock
L1 = { lock: 1 lock 70 }
L2 = { lock: lock < 1 }
L3 = { lock: lock > 70 }
S1 = { stock: 1 stock 80 }
S2 = { stock: stock < 1 }
S3 = { stock: stock > 80 }
Barrel
B1 = { barrel: 1 barrel 90 }
B2 = { barrel: barrel < 1 }
B3 = { barrel: barrel > 90 }
48

Commission Problem
Strong Input Domain Equivalence Class Test Cases
Weak Input Domain Equivalence Class Test Cases

Test Case
WE1
WE2
WE3
locks
35
0
71
stocks
40
0
81
barrels sales
commission
45
3900
640
0
ERROR
ERROR
91
ERROR
ERROR
Test Case
SE1
SE2
SE3
SE4
SE5
SE6
SE7
SE8
SE9
SE10
SE11
SE12
SE13
SE14
SE15
SE16
SE17
SE18
SE19
SE20
SE21
SE22
SE23
SE24
SE25
SE26
SE27
locks
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
stocks
40
40
40
0
0
0
81
81
81
40
40
40
0
0
0
81
81
81
40
40
40
0
0
0
81
81
81
barrels
45
0
91
45
0
91
45
0
91
45
0
91
45
0
91
45
0
91
45
0
91
45
0
91
45
0
91
sales
commission
3900
640
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
49

Commission Problem
sales = 45 x locks + 30 x stocks + 25 x barrels

L1 = { <lock, stock, barrel> : sales 1000 }
L2 = { <lock, stock, barrel> : 1000 < sales
1800 }
L3 = { <lock, stock, barrel> : sales > 1800 }
Output Range Equivalence Class Test Cases
Test Case
OR1
OR2
OR3
locks
5
15
25
stocks
5
15
25
barrels
5
15
25
sales
500
1500
2500
commission
50
175
360
50
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


51

1.
2.
3.
4.
The traditional form of equivalence class testing is

generally not as thorough as weak equivalence class
testing, which in turn, is not as thorough as the strong
form of equivalence class testing
The only time it makes sense to use the traditional
approach is when the implementation language is not
strongly typed
If error conditions are a high priority, we could extend
strong equivalence class testing to include invalid
classes (e.g. commission problem)
Equivalence class testing is appropriate when input
data is defined in terms of ranges and sets of discrete
values. This is certainly the case when system
malfunctions can occur for out-of-limit variable values
52

5.
6.
7.
Equivalence class testing is strengthened by a hybrid

approach with boundary value testing. (We can reuse
the effort made in defining the equivalence classes)
(e.g. NextDate function)
Equivalence class testing is indicated when the
program function is complex. In such cases, the
complexity of the function can help identify useful
equivalence classes, as in the NextDate function
Strong equivalence class testing makes a presumption
that the variables are independent when the Cartesian
Product is taken. If there are any dependencies, these
will often generate error test cases, as they did in the
NextDate function
53

8.
Several tries may be needed before the

right equivalence relation is discovered,
as we saw in the NextDate example. In
other cases, there is an obvious or
natural equivalence partition. When in
doubt, the best bet is to try to second
guess aspects of any reasonable
implementation
54
Agenda
Robustness Testing
Worst Case Testing
Examples


Equivalence Classes


55

Boundary Value Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boundary Value Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Functional Testing Part 1

Boundary Value Testing Equivalence Class Testing

Boundary Value Testing