STQA Assignment - Static Testing

Static testing 

In PART A of assignment 1, you have written requirements for a system. Your team will now be given a requirements document from another team for you to review. You are to use inspection in reviewing these documents. Your team has to review the document for the ambiguity of requirements, consistency among requirements, completeness of requirements and correctness of requirements. Each team must review all 30 requirements in the document. Each team must have three reviewers, one manager, and one scribe. The outcome of the inspection my follow the following format:

Facebook
Review outcome:
Requirement ID		Comments from reviewers
Create Account		Ambiguity of requirements User can create new account using create account form which is understandable and clear Consistency among requirements The form used in create account is same like user create their email and other social media account that consist of the first name, surname, mobile number or email address, password, birthdate, and gender which is easy to understand
Log in		Ambiguity of requirements The statement was ambiguous as it doesn’t clearly state the boundary and context. Unclear Structure The requirements don't follow the standard structure and it is very hard to trace the dependency and doesn’t have ID of each requirement. Incomplete No details where the validation and encryption parts. The statements were too solid without details and elaboration. Universal Quantifiers The term access all Facebook function is inappropriate as the user may only have access to certain Facebook function. Suggested: Access Facebook function for user level only. Inconsistent term The term can also be replace with the prioritization terms (may, must, should or shall)
Log out		Incomplete No post condition such as the system will reset the session until the user log in again. Inconsistent term The term can also be replaced with the prioritization terms (may, must, should or shall)
Adding friend		Inconsistent term The term can also be replace with the prioritization terms (may, must, should or shall)
Update status		Ambiguity of Requirement People can update their status directly as the button ‘status’ is clear Consistency of Requirement The button ‘status’ is also used in Whatsapp, Twitter and etc, which is easy to understand
Upload photos		Inconsistent term The term can also be replace with the prioritization terms (may, must, should or shall)
Send messages		Inconsistent term The term can also be replace with the prioritization terms (may, must, should or shall)
Comment a post		Ambiguity of requirement It is confusing and unclear. Correctness of requirement Those who can comment the user’s post should be based on the type post the user shared. If the user shared the post only between friends of the users' list, then only those who are in the friends' list can comment on the post. If the user shared the post with the public, then any users (even though not in the user’s friend list) can comment on the post shared.
Like a post		Ambiguity of requirement It is clear and understandable. Correctness of the requirement All the reactions (love, ‘haha’, ‘wow’, sad or angry) and likes will be counted.
Upload videos		Ambiguity Does “the user” mean “any user”, or does the user have to achieve a certain status? Would all users upload from their phone albums? How about desktop files? How many files? Is there a maximum or a minimum number of files? Is there a maximum or minimum size? How about the format? Correctness. It is recommended to use “shall” instead of “will” in this context, because “creating a group” is a “must-have” functionality. “Will” is generally used for prospective/future requirements. Consistency “The user can set the privacy setting for this post”, however, this function is about uploading videos. Shouldn’t this requirement be a part of the “posts” requirement? Completeness There are too many actions in the requirement. A good requirement should only contain one sentence with one requirement. This function has several in one paragraph. It is advised to split it into smaller sub-requirements as part of a whole.
Create a group		Ambiguity Does “the user” mean “any user”, or does the user have to achieve a certain status? Correctness. It is recommended to use “shall” instead of “will” in this context, because “creating a group” is a “must-have” functionality. “Will” is generally used for prospective/future requirements. Completeness There are too many actions in the requirement. A good requirement should only contain one sentence with one requirement. This function has several in one paragraph. It is advised to split it into smaller sub-requirements as part of a whole.
Create an event		Unclear Structure The requirements don't follow the standard structure which is complex and messy.
Video call		No Issue
Voice call		Completeness There are too many actions in the requirement. A good requirement should only contain one sentence with one requirement. This function has several in one paragraph. It is advised to split it into smaller sub-requirements as part of a whole.
Checking in a location		Correctness of requirement It is automatic and the user just needs to choose the location after typing few words only. The system will usually detect the similar location what the user has typed. Ambiguity of Requirement It is clear and understandable
Create a poll		Ambiguity It is ambiguous; in groups, there are roles such as administrators and members. In the requirement, only “user” is stated - it does not specify whether a user has to be an administrator or member or both to be able to create or answer a poll. Correctness It demonstrates the way the function is supposed to work correctly. Consistency Some functions may take longer loading time compared to another function. Completeness There are too many actions in the requirement. A good requirement should only contain one sentence with one requirement. This function has several in one paragraph. It is advised to split it into smaller sub-requirements as part of a whole.
Sell item		Ambiguity Is there a limit to how many items I can post per listing? Or is it that I can only post one item per listing? Correctness Consistency Completeness There are too many actions in the requirement. A good requirement should only contain one sentence with one requirement. This function has several in one paragraph. It is advised to split it into smaller sub-requirements as part of a whole.
Edit profile		Ambiguity of Requirement It is clear and understandable. No issue.
Change language		Correctness of requirement It is automatic and the user just needs to choose the language after typing few words only. The system will usually detect the similar language what the user has typed.
Create album		Ambiguity of Requirement It is clear and understandable. No issue.
Sharing user’s status		Ambiguity of Requirement It is clear and understandable. No issue.
Security-Transport Layer Security		Completeness of requirements People still can hack Facebook account and it is not secured
Portability-installability		Consistency requirement Can be used in Google Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Opera
Efficiency-Performance		Consistency requirement It's loading time and processing task is consistent. No issue.
Usability-Understandability		Ambiguity of Requirement It is clear and understandable. Etc layout of the page No issue.
Functionality-Adaptability		Correctness Requirement Public API is available in Facebook for development. It can adapt at any features
Functionality-Suitability		Completeness requirement It can be connected to many people. For example, with their own theme, they can share their stories in Facebook
Portability-Co-Existence		Consistency requirement Can be used by other users who have access the account
Usability- Learnability		Correctness Requirement The tutorial to guide the user on setting an account until adding a friend is clear and ease the user to learn its functionalities.
Usability- Operationality		Completeness Sometimes, it is complicated because we need to click on the symbol icon instead of press a button. For example, button “L” for like.