2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
|
|
|
<meta charset="utf-8"/>
|
|
|
|
|
<link type="image/png" href="assets/logo.png" rel="icon">
|
|
|
|
|
<title>ReadySet Markdown</title>
|
|
|
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
|
<script src="https://www.w3schools.com/lib/w3data.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<topbar style="display:none;">
|
|
|
|
|
<item><a href="index.html">Overview</a></item>
|
|
|
|
|
<item><a href="plan.html">Project Plan</a></item>
|
|
|
|
|
<item><a href="index-all.html">Workflows</a></item>
|
|
|
|
|
<menu name="Themes"><item><a id="settheme"><b>Current</b></a></item></menu>
|
|
|
|
|
<toc></toc>
|
|
|
|
|
</topbar>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<xmp theme="readable" style="display:none;">
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Markdown content here -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Standard Terms Glossary
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Process impact:** This file as a dictionary of standard terms defined
|
|
|
|
|
as they are used across projects. Individual projects should not need to
|
|
|
|
|
edit this file. Writing out the definitions of terms and acronyms here
|
|
|
|
|
helps keep other documents more concise and easy to edit. Check the
|
|
|
|
|
[ReadySET glossary](http://readyset.tigris.org/templates/glossary-std) for
|
|
|
|
|
updates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jump to: [General](#general_terms) |
|
|
|
|
|
[Computer science & technology](#computer_science_and_technology_terms) |
|
|
|
|
|
[Process](#process_terms) |
|
|
|
|
|
[Software development tools](#development_tool_terms) |
|
|
|
|
|
[Requirements](#requirements_terms) | [Design](#design_terms) |
|
|
|
|
|
[Design goals terms](#design_goals_terms) | [QA terms](#qa_terms) |
|
|
|
|
|
[QA goals terms](#qa_goals_terms) | [Additional terms](#additional_standard_terms)|
|
|
|
|
|
[Project terms](glossary.html#glossary)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### General Terms
|
2018-08-14 15:55:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
##### Chipping away
|
|
|
|
|
The process of removing sample text from templates when that text
|
|
|
|
|
does not apply to the current project. Often some of the sample text
|
|
|
|
|
will be kept or revised to fit the current project. Even if the
|
|
|
|
|
sample text does not fit the current project, it provides a reusable
|
|
|
|
|
example of how to phrase that type of description. The term
|
|
|
|
|
"chipping away" comes from an old joke: when a sculptor is asked how
|
|
|
|
|
he carved a marble statue of a horse, he replies "It was easy, I
|
|
|
|
|
just started with a big block of marble and chipped away everything
|
|
|
|
|
that did not look like a horse."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Attached worksheet
|
|
|
|
|
The idea is similar to filling in an IRS form and using worksheets
|
|
|
|
|
to calculate subtotals or make specific decisions. That is to say,
|
|
|
|
|
there is a hierarchy to the templates: there are the main templates,
|
|
|
|
|
and then worksheets for specific topics. We have divided the
|
|
|
|
|
information into several files so that each file is focused on one
|
|
|
|
|
topic, and so that each file can be worked on by one person in a
|
|
|
|
|
reasonable amount of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Process impact
|
|
|
|
|
The process impact box on each template explains where the current
|
|
|
|
|
template fits into the software development process. It usually
|
|
|
|
|
includes a brief comment on who should create the document, and who
|
|
|
|
|
would be expected to make use of it. You can change the process
|
|
|
|
|
impact box, but you should not need to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Checklist
|
|
|
|
|
There are two kinds of checklists:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Many of the templates have a section with questions that help
|
|
|
|
|
you check your work in that template. Often the sample answers
|
|
|
|
|
to the questions prompt you to take some corrective action.
|
|
|
|
|
- For design and code review meetings, there are links to
|
|
|
|
|
guidelines and checklists that help you identify common errors
|
|
|
|
|
in those artifacts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Sticky note
|
|
|
|
|
The idea is similar to a post-it note attached to a document that
|
|
|
|
|
tells you do "sign here" or fill in a certain part. There are two
|
|
|
|
|
types of sticky notes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *TODO: Instructs you on how to fill in the template. This is the
|
|
|
|
|
minimum that you need to do. One of the main goals of ReadySET
|
|
|
|
|
is to help your team *quickly* carry out basic software
|
|
|
|
|
engineering activities. The TODO sticky notes make that easy by
|
|
|
|
|
making the templates more self-explanatory.*
|
|
|
|
|
- TIP: Helps you think of better ways to fill in the template. One
|
|
|
|
|
of the other main goals of ReadySET is to help your team make
|
|
|
|
|
better decisions that can make your whole project more
|
|
|
|
|
successful. The TIP sticky notes help with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After you have done what the sticky note says, you can delete the
|
|
|
|
|
sticky note.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Computer Science and Technology Terms
|
2018-08-14 15:55:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### ::API (Application Programming Interface)
|
|
|
|
|
An API is a set of functions that one software component makes
|
|
|
|
|
available to other software components. That allows other programs
|
|
|
|
|
to "call" this program via direct function calls, or more indirect
|
|
|
|
|
communications such as [SOAP](#soap) messages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### ::SOAP
|
|
|
|
|
SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) is the message format used by
|
|
|
|
|
standard web services. It entails sending an XML document to a
|
|
|
|
|
server in order to invoke an operation on the server-side.
|
|
|
|
|
[More information on SOAP](http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Programming/Internet/Web_Services/SOAP/?tc=1).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Process Terms
|
2018-08-14 15:55:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Change Control Board (CCB)
|
|
|
|
|
A group of people who review proposed changes to the project
|
|
|
|
|
requirements and/or source code to accept or reject changes in each
|
|
|
|
|
particular release. Proposed changes are usually rejected if they
|
|
|
|
|
introduce too much risk or would trigger additional effort (e.g.,
|
|
|
|
|
the need to redo a lot of testing on new code). A CCB is usually
|
|
|
|
|
composed of managers and representatives of other stakeholders such
|
|
|
|
|
as the QA group and key customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Feature Complete
|
|
|
|
|
A release is called "feature complete" when the development team
|
|
|
|
|
agrees that no new features will be added to this release. New
|
|
|
|
|
features may still be suggested for later releases. More development
|
|
|
|
|
work needs to be done to implement all the features and
|
|
|
|
|
repair defects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Code Complete
|
|
|
|
|
A release is called "code complete" when the development team agrees
|
|
|
|
|
that no entirely new source code will be added to this release.
|
|
|
|
|
There may still be source code changes to fix defects. There may
|
|
|
|
|
still be changes to documentation and data files, and to the code
|
|
|
|
|
for test cases or utilities. New code may be added in a
|
|
|
|
|
future release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Internal Release Number
|
|
|
|
|
An internal release number is the number that the development team
|
|
|
|
|
gives each release. Internal release numbers typically count up
|
|
|
|
|
logically, i.e., they do not skip numbers. They may have many parts:
|
|
|
|
|
e.g., major, minor, patch-level, build number, RC number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### External Release Number
|
|
|
|
|
External release numbers are the numbers that users see. Often, they
|
|
|
|
|
will be the same as the internal release number. That is especially
|
|
|
|
|
true if the product being built is a component intended to be reused
|
|
|
|
|
by another engineering group in the same development organization.
|
|
|
|
|
External release numbers can be different for products that
|
|
|
|
|
face competition. External release number are simpler, and may not
|
|
|
|
|
count up logically. E.g., a certain major ISP jumped up to version 8
|
|
|
|
|
of their client software because their competition had released
|
|
|
|
|
version 8. Later, the competition used version "10 Optimized" rather
|
|
|
|
|
than "10.1" or "11".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Release Number
|
|
|
|
|
The term "release number" by itself refers to an
|
|
|
|
|
[external release number](#external_release_number). Users normally are not aware
|
|
|
|
|
of the existence of any internal release numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Development Tool Terms
|
2018-08-14 15:55:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Version Control System
|
|
|
|
|
::DEFINITION1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Commit Log Message
|
|
|
|
|
::DEFINITION1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Issue Tracker
|
|
|
|
|
::DEFINITION1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Unit Testing Automation
|
|
|
|
|
::DEFINITION1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Automated Build System
|
|
|
|
|
::DEFINITION1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Source Code Analysis Tool
|
|
|
|
|
::DEFINITION1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Style Checker
|
|
|
|
|
::DEFINITION1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Source Code Formatter (Pretty Printer)
|
|
|
|
|
::DEFINITION1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### System Test Automation
|
|
|
|
|
::DEFINITION1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Requirements Terms
|
2018-08-14 15:55:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Feature specification
|
|
|
|
|
A feature specification focuses on one feature of a software product
|
|
|
|
|
and completely describes how that feature can be used. It includes a
|
|
|
|
|
brief description of the purpose of the feature, the input and
|
|
|
|
|
output, and any constraints. Individual bullet items give precise
|
|
|
|
|
details on all aspects of the feature. One feature may be used in
|
|
|
|
|
many different ways as part of many different use cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Use case
|
|
|
|
|
The main part of a use case is a set of steps that give an example
|
|
|
|
|
of how an [actor](#actor) can use the product to succeed at
|
|
|
|
|
a goal. These steps are called the "Main success scenario", and they
|
|
|
|
|
include both user intentions and system responses. One use case may
|
|
|
|
|
show how the actor uses several features to accomplish a goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Actor
|
|
|
|
|
A user or an external system that uses the system being built.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Design Terms
|
2018-08-14 15:55:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### ::TERM2
|
|
|
|
|
::DEFINITION2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Design Goals Terms
|
2018-08-14 15:55:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Correctness
|
|
|
|
|
This design correctly matches the given requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Feasibility
|
|
|
|
|
This design can be implemented and tested with the planned amount of
|
|
|
|
|
time and effort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Understandability
|
|
|
|
|
Developers can understand this design and correctly implement it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Implementation phase guidance
|
|
|
|
|
This design divides the implementation into components or aspects
|
|
|
|
|
that can correspond to reasonable implementation tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Modularity
|
|
|
|
|
Concerns are clearly separated so that the impact of most design
|
|
|
|
|
changes would be limited to only one or a few modules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Extensibility
|
|
|
|
|
New features or components can be easily added later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Testability
|
|
|
|
|
It is easy to test components of this design independently, and
|
|
|
|
|
information is available to help diagnose defects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Efficiency
|
|
|
|
|
The design enables the system to perform functions with an
|
|
|
|
|
acceptable amount of time, storage space, bandwidth, and
|
|
|
|
|
other resources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Ease of integration
|
|
|
|
|
The components will work together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Capacity matching
|
|
|
|
|
The architecture deploys components onto machines that provide
|
|
|
|
|
needed resources with reasonable total expense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Expressiveness
|
|
|
|
|
It allows for storage of all valid values and relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Ease of access
|
|
|
|
|
Application code to access stored data is simple
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Reliability
|
|
|
|
|
Stored data cannot easily be corrupted by defective code, concurrent
|
|
|
|
|
access, or unexpected process termination
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Data capacity
|
|
|
|
|
The system can store the amount of data needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Data security
|
|
|
|
|
Protection of sensitive user and corporate data from unauthorized
|
|
|
|
|
access or modification
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Performance
|
|
|
|
|
Data can be accessed quickly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Interoperability
|
|
|
|
|
The database or data files can be accessed and updated by other
|
|
|
|
|
applications
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Intrusion prevention
|
|
|
|
|
Prevent, e.g., hackers opening a command shell on our server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Abuse prevention
|
|
|
|
|
Prevention of abuse (e.g., using our system to send spam).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Auditability
|
|
|
|
|
All changes can be accounted for later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Understandability and learnability
|
|
|
|
|
Users can reasonably be expected to understand the UI at
|
|
|
|
|
first sight. Users will be able to discover additional features
|
|
|
|
|
without aid from other users or documentation, and they will be able
|
|
|
|
|
to recall what they have learned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Task support and efficiency
|
|
|
|
|
The UI is well matched to the users' tasks and it can be used with a
|
|
|
|
|
reasonable number of clicks and keystrokes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Safety
|
|
|
|
|
Users are not likely to accidentally produce an undesired result
|
|
|
|
|
(e.g., delete data, or send a half-finished email).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Consistency and familiarity
|
|
|
|
|
Users can apply their knowledge of similar UIs or UI standards to
|
|
|
|
|
this system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### QA Terms
|
2018-08-14 15:55:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Bug
|
|
|
|
|
*n.* **Deprecated** since 1991. See [defect](#defect).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Error
|
|
|
|
|
*v.* A mistaken thought in the developer's mind. Often caused by
|
|
|
|
|
miscommunication or bad assumptions. Errors can create
|
|
|
|
|
[defects](#defect). E.g., a developer might erroneously think that
|
|
|
|
|
the square root of -4 is -2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Defect
|
|
|
|
|
*n.* The result of the developer's [error](#error) embodied in the
|
|
|
|
|
product source code, initial data, or documents. E.g., a square root
|
|
|
|
|
function which allows negative numbers as arguments is defective.
|
|
|
|
|
Defects can be removed by changing the source code, initial data,
|
|
|
|
|
or document.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Fault
|
|
|
|
|
*n.* The execution of defective code. E.g., if a certain input is
|
|
|
|
|
provided to defective code, it may cause an exception, or go into an
|
|
|
|
|
infinite loop, or store an incorrect value in an internal variable.
|
|
|
|
|
A fault is not normally visible to users, only the
|
|
|
|
|
[failure](#failure) is visible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Failure
|
|
|
|
|
*n.* The user-visible result of a [fault](#fault). E.g., an error
|
|
|
|
|
message or an incorrect result. This is evidence that can be
|
|
|
|
|
reported in a defect report. Developers use failure evidence during
|
|
|
|
|
debugging to eventually find and remove [defects](#defect).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### QA Goals Terms
|
2018-08-14 15:55:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Functionality > Correctness
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Correctness is the most basic quality goal. It means that, when
|
|
|
|
|
valid inputs are given and the system is in a valid state and under
|
|
|
|
|
reasonable load, the system's behavior and results will be correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Functionality > Robustness
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Robustness is the system's ability to gracefully handle
|
|
|
|
|
invalid inputs. It should never be possible for any user input to
|
|
|
|
|
crash the system or corrupt data, even if that user input is
|
|
|
|
|
abnormal, unexpected, or malicious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Functionality > Accuracy
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Accuracy refers to the mathematical precision of calculations done
|
|
|
|
|
by the system. Any system that does numeric calculations must
|
|
|
|
|
consider accuracy, e.g., financial or scientific applications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Functionality > Compatibility
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Systems that claim to follow standards or claim compatibility with
|
|
|
|
|
existing systems must adhere to the relevant file formats,
|
|
|
|
|
protocols, and APIs. The relevant standards are linked at the top of
|
|
|
|
|
this document.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Functionality > Factual correctness
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Is the data in the system a true representation of the real world?
|
|
|
|
|
Any system that contains initial data or gathers data about the real
|
|
|
|
|
world should be sure that the data is factually correct. E.g., a tax
|
|
|
|
|
preparation program should embody correct and up-to-date facts about
|
|
|
|
|
tax law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Usability > Understandability and Readability
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Users need to understand the system to use it. The basic metaphor
|
|
|
|
|
should be understandable and appropriate to user tasks. Some defects
|
|
|
|
|
in understandability include unclear metaphors, poor or hard-to-see
|
|
|
|
|
labels, lack of feedback to confirm the effects of user actions, and
|
|
|
|
|
missing or inadequate on-line help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Usability > Learnability and Memorability
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Every user interface contains some details that users will need to
|
|
|
|
|
learn and remember. E.g., Alt-F to open the "File" menu. UI cues and
|
|
|
|
|
rules can make these details easier to learn and remember. E.g., the
|
|
|
|
|
"F" is underlined and, as a rule, the first letter is usually the
|
|
|
|
|
accelerator key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Usability > Task support
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
This is the quality of match between user tasks and the system's UI.
|
|
|
|
|
Task support defects are cases where the system forces the user to
|
|
|
|
|
take unnatural steps to accomplish a task or where the user is given
|
|
|
|
|
no support for a difficult step in a task. E.g., must the user
|
|
|
|
|
invent an 8-character filename for their "Christmas card list"?
|
|
|
|
|
E.g., must users total their own tax deductions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Usability > Efficiency
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Users should be able to accomplish common tasks with
|
|
|
|
|
reasonable effort. Common tasks should be possible with only one or
|
|
|
|
|
two steps. The difficulty of each step should also be considered.
|
|
|
|
|
E.g., does the user have to remember a long code number or click on
|
|
|
|
|
a very small button?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Usability > Safety
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Humans are error-prone, but the negative effects of common errors
|
|
|
|
|
should be limited. E.g., users should realize that a given command
|
|
|
|
|
will delete data, and be asked to confirm their intent or have the
|
|
|
|
|
option to undo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Usability > Consistency and Familiarity
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Users should be able to apply their past experience from other
|
|
|
|
|
similar systems. This means that user interface standards should be
|
|
|
|
|
followed, and common conventions should be used whenever possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Also, UI elements that appear in several parts of the UI should be
|
|
|
|
|
used consistently, unless another UI quality takes priority. E.g.,
|
|
|
|
|
if most currency entry fields do not require a dollar-sign, then one
|
|
|
|
|
that does demand it is a consistency defect, unless there is a real
|
|
|
|
|
chance that the user is dealing with another currency on that step
|
|
|
|
|
in his/her task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Usability > Subjective satisfaction
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Users should feel generally satisfied with the UI. This is a
|
|
|
|
|
subjective quality that sums up the other user interface qualities
|
|
|
|
|
as well as aesthetics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Security
|
|
|
|
|
The system should allow usage only by authorized users, and restrict
|
|
|
|
|
usage based on permissions. The system should not allow users to
|
|
|
|
|
side-step security rule or exploit security holes. E.g., all user
|
|
|
|
|
input should be validated and any malicious input should
|
|
|
|
|
be rejected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Reliability > Consistency under load
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Every system has some capacity limits. What happens when those
|
|
|
|
|
limits are exceeded? The system should never lose or corrupt data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Reliability > Consistency under concurrency
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Systems that allow concurrent access by multiple users, or that use
|
|
|
|
|
concurrency internally, should be free of race conditions
|
|
|
|
|
and deadlock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Reliability > Availability under load
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Every system has some capacity limits. What happens when those
|
|
|
|
|
limits are exceeded? The system should continue to service those
|
|
|
|
|
requests that it is capable of handling. It should not crash or stop
|
|
|
|
|
processing all requests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Reliability > Longevity
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
The system should continue to operate as long as it is needed. It
|
|
|
|
|
should not gradually use up a limited resource. Example longevity
|
|
|
|
|
defects include memory leaks or filling the disk with log files.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Efficiency
|
|
|
|
|
The system's operations should execute quickly, with reasonable use
|
|
|
|
|
of machine and network resources. E.g., if one user does one
|
|
|
|
|
operation, it should execute efficiently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Scalability
|
|
|
|
|
Scalability is a general quality that holds when the system
|
|
|
|
|
continues to satisfy its requirements when various usage parameters
|
|
|
|
|
are increased. E.g., a file server might be scalable to a high
|
|
|
|
|
number of users, or to very large files or very high capacity disks.
|
|
|
|
|
Several specific scalability goals are listed below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Scalability > Performance under load
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
This is a specific type of scalability goal dealing with the
|
|
|
|
|
performance of the system at times when it is servicing many
|
|
|
|
|
requests from many users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Scalability > Large data volume
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
This is a specific type of scalability goal dealing with the ability
|
|
|
|
|
for the system to handle large data sets. Operations should continue
|
|
|
|
|
to be correct and efficient as data set size increases. Furthermore,
|
|
|
|
|
the user interface should still be usable as the data presented to
|
|
|
|
|
users increases in length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Operability
|
|
|
|
|
The long-term needs of system administrators should be
|
|
|
|
|
reliably supported. E.g., is the system easy to install? Can the
|
|
|
|
|
administrator recover from a crash? Is there sufficient log output
|
|
|
|
|
to diagnose problems in the field? Can the system's data be backed
|
|
|
|
|
up without downtime? Can the system be upgraded practically?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Maintainability > Understandability
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Will it be easy for (future) developers to understand how the system
|
|
|
|
|
works?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Maintainability > Evolvability
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Can the system easily be modified and extended over time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-14 17:39:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#### Maintainability > Testability
|
2018-08-14 12:48:17 +00:00
|
|
|
Can the system easily be tested? Do the requirements precisely
|
|
|
|
|
specify possible inputs and the desired results? Can the system be
|
|
|
|
|
tested in parts? When failures are observed, can they be traced back
|
|
|
|
|
to defects in specific components (i.e., debugging)? Is testing
|
|
|
|
|
practical with the available testing tools?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Additional Standard Terms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For additional standard terms, see the following reference sites:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- [Dictionary.com](http://www.dictionary.com/)
|
|
|
|
|
- [Whatis.com](http://www.whatis.com/)
|
|
|
|
|
- [NIST Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures](http://www.nist.gov/dads/)
|
|
|
|
|
- [Free on-line dictionary of computing](http:/http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/index.html)
|
|
|
|
|
- [IBM's glossary of computing terms](http://www-3.ibm.com/ibm/terminology/goc/gocmain.htm)
|
|
|
|
|
- [Jargon File](http://www.jargon.org/)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- End Markdown content -->
|
|
|
|
|
</xmp>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div w3-include-html="_words-of-wisdom.html"></div>
|
|
|
|
|
<div w3-include-html="_footer.html"></div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<script>
|
|
|
|
|
w3IncludeHTML();
|
|
|
|
|
</script>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<script src="http://strapdownjs.com/v/0.2/strapdown.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Include it AFTER strapdown -->
|
|
|
|
|
<script src="assets/strapdown/strapdown-topbar.min.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Include it AFTER EVERYTHING -->
|
|
|
|
|
<script src="assets/logo.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
|
<script src="assets/themeswitcher.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
|
</html>
|
