Revision as of 08:34, 29 April 2014 edit There is a T101 in your kitchen (talk \| contribs) 135 edits Added MC/DC criticisms ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:18, 5 May 2014 edit undo Yobot (talk \| contribs) Bots 4,733,870 edits m →Criticism: WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes using AWB (10093) Next edit →
Line 12: ==Criticism== The MC/DC coverage criterium is highly suspect. Purely syntactic rearrangements of decisions (breaking them into several independently evaluated conditions using temporary variables, the values are which are then used in the decision) which do not change the semantics of a program will dramatically lower the difficulty of obtaining complete MC/DC coverage. <ref>{{cite journal \| title = The Effect of Program and Model Structure on MC⁄DC Test Adequacy Coverage \| last1 = Rajan \| first1 = Ajitha \| last2 = Heimdahl \| first2 = Mats \| last3 = Whalen \| first3 = Michael \| date = March 2003 \| url = http://se.inf.ethz.ch/old/teaching/2009-S/0276/slides/fiva.pdf }}</ref>. This is because MC/DC does not consider the dataflow coming together in a decision but is starts off with the program syntax, it is thus easy to "cheat" either deliberately or involuntarily. ==Definitions==

Modified condition/decision coverage: Difference between revisions