Jump to content

Talk:Software verification and validation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 162.84.78.55 (talk) at 15:08, 30 June 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A couple of gripes with this page:

1) V&V is not "normally part of the software testing process of a project." It's bigger than testing. Depending on a particular organization's philosophy, I've seen it as either (a) the inline-with-development structure/process that guides activities such as testing (and design reviews, etc) or (b) the parallel-to-development, classically-independent review of the output of all development phases (of which one phase is testing)

2) There is no relationship between [static testing and verification], or [dynamic testing and validation]. That is just two different types of testing; either the code is running, or not. That's just very random to me. This bizarre association is also echoed on the "Static Testing" and "Dynamic Testing" pages, except they reversed it (not that it makes any more or less sense backwards).

Also, I think I've read two sets of definitions of "Verification" with respect to "Validation". One is given in this page (is consistent with IEC-62304, others), the other says that verification is confirming the output of each phase, validation is confirming the output of the whole process. However can't cite my source; when I find it I will add to this. Oh, found it: IEEE 12207, Sections 6.4 and 6.5. (You know, on second thought, the language is so weird that both interpretations are possible. Maybe they're one and the same, it comes down to verification is low level checking along the way, validation is final check that all requirements are met. However now I wonder if "built the product right" vs "built the right product" is a handy mnemonic that loses some of the meaning -- you shouldn't wait till the "final as-built" validation to make sure you built the right product.)

199.171.110.251 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is only about....

the software verification and validation, please add (software) in the title. Otherwise, the article will be modified for universal purposes.

I agree. A general article about verification and validation is needed. Software can have its own page with its own discussion. Rlsheehan Sept 3, 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlsheehan (talkcontribs) 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rlsheehan 01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Building the "right product" (??)

I am not sure that validation is normally intended to "ensure that the product actually meets the user's needs". Major software development is governed by the requirements documents, as long as the software meets the requirements then the developers have done their job and the software company has fulfilled its contract - as is described by IEEE-STD-610.

The user finds out whether the software meets their needs when they use it, but if it doesn't, then it was because they didn't agree on the right requirements, which is not really validation.

220.237.77.100 (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

I am not sure if Atsec information security, should be in the See Also Section.