Pairwise testing: How to create the table? - testing

Hello I have doubt regarding how to create the table for the pairwise testing.
For example if I have three parameter which can each attain two different values. How do I create a table of input with all possible combination then? Would it look something like this?
| 1 2 3
-----------
1 | 1 1 1
2 | 1 2 2
3 | 1 1 2
4 | 1 2 1
Does each parameter corresponds to each column?
However since I have 3 parameter, which each can take 2 different value. The number of test cases should be 2^3 isn't it?

There's a good article with links to some useful tools here:
http://blog.josephwilk.net/ruby/pairwise-testing-with-cucumber.html

For the parameters: each column is a parameter, and each row is a possible combination. Here is the table:
| 1 2 3
-----------
1 | 1 1 1
2 | 2 1 1
3 | 1 2 1
4 | 1 1 2
5 | 2 2 1
6 | 2 1 2
7 | 1 2 2
8 | 2 2 2
so 2^3=8 possible combinations as you can see :)
For the values: each column is a value, and each row is a possible combination:
| 1 2
--------
1 | 1 1
2 | 2 1
3 | 1 2
4 | 2 2
They are 2^2=4 possible combinations. Hope it helps.

1) Please note that pair-wise testing is not about scanning exhaustively all possible combination of values of all parameters. Firstly, such a scanning would give you an enormous amount of test cases that almost no existing system could be able to run all of them.
Secondly, pair-wise testing for a software system is based on the hope that the two parameters having the highest number of possible values are the culprit for the highest percentage of faults of that system.
This is of course only a hope and almost no rigorous scientific research has existed so far to prove that.
2) What I often see in the documentations discussing pair wise testing, like this is that the list of all possible values (aka the pair-wise test table) is not constructed in a well thought way. This creates confusions.
In your case, all the parameters have the same number of possible values (2 values), therefore you could choose any two parameters of those three to build the table. What you could pay attention is the ordering of the combination: you iterate first the top-right parameter, then the next parameter to the left, and so on, ...
Say if you have two parameters p1 and p2, p1 has two possible values apple and orange; and p2 has two possible values red and blue, then your pair-wise test table would be:
index| p1 p2
------------------
1 | apple red
2 | apple blue
3 | orange red
4 | orange blue

Related

Select maximum value where another column is used for for the Grouping

I'm trying to join several tables, where one of the tables is acting as a
key-value store, and then after the joins find the maximum value in a
column less than another column. As a simplified example, I have the following three tables:
Documents:
DocumentID
Filename
LatestRevision
1
D1001.SLDDRW
18
2
P5002.SLDPRT
10
Variables:
VariableID
VariableName
1
DateReleased
2
Change
3
Description
VariableValues:
DocumentID
VariableID
Revision
Value
1
2
1
Created
1
3
1
Drawing
1
2
3
Changed Dimension
1
1
4
2021-02-01
1
2
11
Corrected typos
1
1
16
2021-02-25
2
3
1
Generic part
2
3
5
Screw
2
2
4
2021-02-24
I can use the LEFT JOIN/IS NULL thing to get the latest version of
variables relatively easily (see http://sqlfiddle.com/#!7/5982d/3/0).
What I want is the latest version of variables that are less than or equal
to a revision which has a DateReleased, for example:
DocumentID
Filename
Variable
Value
VariableRev
DateReleased
ReleasedRev
1
D1001.SLDDRW
Change
Changed Dimension
3
2021-02-01
4
1
D1001.SLDDRW
Description
Drawing
1
2021-02-01
4
1
D1001.SLDDRW
Description
Drawing
1
2021-02-25
16
1
D1001.SLDDRW
Change
Corrected Typos
11
2021-02-25
16
2
P5002.SLDPRT
Description
Generic Part
1
2021-02-24
4
How do I do this?
I figured this out. Add another JOIN at the start to add in another version of the VariableValues table selecting only the DateReleased variables, then make sure that all the VariableValues Revisions selected are less than this date released. I think the LEFT JOIN has to be added after this table.
The example at http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/bd6068/3/0 shows this better.

Check constraint for multiple conditions

The teacher gave us a team assignment, and me and my teammate are quite struggling with it (especially since we need to use things like TRIGGERS and PROCEDURES, things we didn't see in class yet …).
We need to implement an arc-relationship, and we fail to understand how …
But before I tell you guys what I need to accomplish, I will give you part of the description of the task, so you guys can understand the situation a bit better …
We basically need to make an ERD for a VLSI CAD-system and we need to implement it. Now, we have our CELL entity, the attributes of which aren't really relevant … The only thing you guys need to know in order to help us is that it has a primary key, CELL_CODE, which is a VARCHAR.
Each CELL has many (I think at least four, I don't think you can have triangular CELLS, but doesn't matter anyways) SIDES. A SIDE can be logically identified by its CELL, and to make matters ridiculously difficult, each SIDE has to be numbered by its CELL, like so:
CELLS:
CELL_CODE
1
2
SIDES:
SEQUENCE_NUMBER CELL_CODE
1 1
2 1
3 1
1 2
2 2
3 2
Now, each SIDE has its CONNECTION_PINS. CONNECTION_PINS is also uniquely identified by SIDES, which are basically numbered in a similar manner:
CELLS:
CELL_CODE
1
2
SIDES:
SEQUENCE_NUMBER CELL_CODE
1 1
2 1
3 1
1 2
2 2
3 2
CONNECTION_PINS:
SEQUENCE_NUMBER SIE_SEQUENCE_NUMBER CELL_CODE
1 1 1
2 1 1
1 2 1
2 2 1
1 3 1
2 3 1
1 1 2
2 1 2
1 2 2
2 2 2
1 3 2
2 3 2
I tried to explain the numbering issue we have here: Data model - PRIMARY KEY numbering issue, but yeah, I didn't really explain it the way it should be explained ...
Now, we have one final entity, which is where the Arc comes in: CONNECTIONS. CONNECTIONS has 2 CONNECTION_PINS: one for START_FROMand one for END_OF. Now, logically seen the start pin can't be the end pin as well, for a given connection. And that's our struggle. Basically, this shouldn't be allowed:
CELLS:
CELL_CODE
1
2
SIDES:
SEQUENCE_NUMBER CELL_CODE
1 1
2 1
3 1
1 2
2 2
3 2
CONNECTION_PINS:
SEQUENCE_NUMBER SIE_SEQUENCE_NUMBER CELL_CODE
1 1 1
2 1 1
1 2 1
2 2 1
1 3 1
2 3 1
1 1 2
2 1 2
1 2 2
2 2 2
1 3 2
2 3 2
CONNECTIONS:
(you shouldn't be able to put this in …)
CPI_SEQNUM_START SIE_SEQNUM_START CELL_CODE_START CPI_SEQNUM_END SIE_SEQNUM_END CELL_CODE_END
1 1 1 1 1 1
Now, this is basically the ERD for this part:
ERD with barred relationships and the arc-relationship in question
and this is the physical model:
Physical model
I basically thought a simple CHECK might do (CHECK (CPI_SEQNUM_START <> CPI_SEQNUM_END AND CELL_CODE_START <> CELL_CODE_END AND SIE_SEQNUM_START <> SIE_SEQNUM_END) ), but that prevented us from inserting anything somehow … Any advice?
Your approach was correct to use a CHECK constraint. Your logic for the constraint was wrong though. You need an OR condition. Only one of the three fields needs to be different.
CPI_SEQNUM_START <> CPI_SEQNUM_END OR
CELL_CODE_START <> CELL_CODE_END OR
SIE_SEQNUM_START <> SIE_SEQNUM
... assuming all three fields are not nullable.

Qlikview - Scatter chart dot colors dimension setup not working

I have some data that I want to display in scatter chart. I have the following two dimensions:
Dimension1: This is each record in the table - say unique id for each row. So the number of dots should be equal to number of records.
Dimension2: This is a combination of 2 columns. tp and vc. Colors of each dot is based on these 2 columns.
tp vc
1 a 1
2 b 2
3 c 1
So there will be dots of 3 colors based on the above tp and vc combinations. Then there are 3 expressions representing X and Y and Size of dot. I am not sure how to configure the dimensions to achieve the goal.
Thanks
You will need a calculated dimmension which is the concatanation expression defined as =tp & vc in your case.
Then this will be your single dimmension. Then your x,y,size expressions make up the remaining requirements for this chart.
This will give you three colors, one for each unique record combination and they will be labled a1 and b2 and c1.
id tp vc x y size
1 | a | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7
2 | b | 2 | 1 | 2 | 10
3 | c | 1 | 9 | 5 | 5

Multiple parents hierarchy recursion

Master Table
===========
ID NAME
1 A
2 B
3 C
4 D
5 E
Hierarchy table with multiple parents (Note that neither can be primary column due to duplicate values):
Relations Table
================
ChildID ParentID
3 1
3 2
4 3
4 2
5 4
Hierarchy becomes like (it might not be this linear always):
1 2
| |
3 3
| |
4 4
| |
5 5
For reporting purpose I need data in recursive hierarchy format so that I can drill down it. I'm not getting if I can get drill down feature from existing data itself (seems not doable as I can not create recursive parent-child relationship due to duplicate values).
Do you have any ideas? My goal is to finally use this structure as a dimension in SSAS which automatically gives drill down if a table has a self primary key-child key relationship.
Using your example data, I actually get a different tree...
Relations Table Tree
================ =======
ChildID ParentID 1 2
3 1 \ /|
3 2 3 |
4 3 \|
4 2 4
5 4 |
5
Do you actually want two independent trees? If that's the case, you could introduce an extra field such as a tree id...
Relations Table Tree1 Tree2
======================= ===== =====
TreeID ParentID ChildID
1 NULL 1 1 2
1 1 3 | |
1 3 4 3 3
1 4 5 | |
2 NULL 2 4 4
2 2 3 | |
2 3 4 5 5
2 4 5
Without some extra piece of information, you'll always have problems of branches splitting and merging without a very well formed set of constraints. For example, if you wanted two linear trees of 1-3-4-5 and 2-3-4-6, your current model would have this...
Relations Table Tree
================ =======
ParentID ChildID 1 2
1 3 \ /
2 3 3
3 4 |
4 5 4
4 6 / \
5 6
The problem you now have though, is that there are FOUR linear paths...
- 1-3-4-5
- 1-3-4-6
- 2-3-4-5
- 2-3-4-6
What may be required is for you to describe a real world situation, exactly what you want from it, and exactly what you don't want from it.
My typical experience is that, for reporting purposes, any node in a tree should only have one parent, but may have many children. This means that when climbing up a tree you only have one route, and when climbing down a tree the data separates into sub-nodes.
Having many parents and many children makes a web rather than a tree. Where you have multiple routes, no matter which direction you traverse the tree.

How to represent and insert into an ordered list in SQL?

I want to represent the list "hi", "hello", "goodbye", "good day", "howdy" (with that order), in a SQL table:
pk | i | val
------------
1 | 0 | hi
0 | 2 | hello
2 | 3 | goodbye
3 | 4 | good day
5 | 6 | howdy
'pk' is the primary key column. Disregard its values.
'i' is the "index" that defines that order of the values in the 'val' column. It is only used to establish the order and the values are otherwise unimportant.
The problem I'm having is with inserting values into the list while maintaining the order. For example, if I want to insert "hey" and I want it to appear between "hello" and "goodbye", then I have to shift the 'i' values of "goodbye" and "good day" (but preferably not "howdy") to make room for the new entry.
So, is there a standard SQL pattern to do the shift operation, but only shift the elements that are necessary? (Note that a simple "UPDATE table SET i=i+1 WHERE i>=3" doesn't work, because it violates the uniqueness constraint on 'i', and also it updates the "howdy" row unnecessarily.)
Or, is there a better way to represent the ordered list? I suppose you could make 'i' a floating point value and choose values between, but then you have to have a separate rebalancing operation when no such value exists.
Or, is there some standard algorithm for generating string values between arbitrary other strings, if I were to make 'i' a varchar?
Or should I just represent it as a linked list? I was avoiding that because I'd like to also be able to do a SELECT .. ORDER BY to get all the elements in order.
As i read your post, I kept thinking 'linked list'
and at the end, I still think that's the way to go.
If you are using Oracle, and the linked list is a separate table (or even the same table with a self referencing id - which i would avoid) then you can use a CONNECT BY query and the pseudo-column LEVEL to determine sort order.
You can easily achieve this by using a cascading trigger that updates any 'index' entry equal to the new one on the insert/update operation to the index value +1. This will cascade through all rows until the first gap stops the cascade - see the second example in this blog entry for a PostgreSQL implementation.
This approach should work independent of the RDBMS used, provided it offers support for triggers to fire before an update/insert. It basically does what you'd do if you implemented your desired behavior in code (increase all following index values until you encounter a gap), but in a simpler and more effective way.
Alternatively, if you can live with a restriction to SQL Server, check the hierarchyid type. While mainly geared at defining nested hierarchies, you can use it for flat ordering as well. It somewhat resembles your approach using floats, as it allows insertion between two positions by assigning fractional values, thus avoiding the need to update other entries.
If you don't use numbers, but Strings, you may have a table:
pk | i | val
------------
1 | a0 | hi
0 | a2 | hello
2 | a3 | goodbye
3 | b | good day
5 | b1 | howdy
You may insert a4 between a3 and b, a21 between a2 and a3, a1 between a0 and a2 and so on. You would need a clever function, to generate an i for new value v between p and n, and the index can become longer and longer, or you need a big rebalancing from time to time.
Another approach could be, to implement a (double-)linked-list in the table, where you don't save indexes, but links to previous and next, which would mean, that you normally have to update 1-2 elements:
pk | prev | val
------------
1 | 0 | hi
0 | 1 | hello
2 | 0 | goodbye
3 | 2 | good day
5 | 3 | howdy
hey between hello & goodbye:
hey get's pk 6,
pk | prev | val
------------
1 | 0 | hi
0 | 1 | hello
6 | 0 | hi <- ins
2 | 6 | goodbye <- upd
3 | 2 | good day
5 | 3 | howdy
the previous element would be hello with pk=0, and goodbye, which linked to hello by now has to link to hey in future.
But I don't know, if it is possible to find a 'order by' mechanism for many db-implementations.
Since I had a similar problem, here is a very simple solution:
Make your i column floats, but insert integer values for the initial data:
pk | i | val
------------
1 | 0.0 | hi
0 | 2.0 | hello
2 | 3.0 | goodbye
3 | 4.0 | good day
5 | 6.0 | howdy
Then, if you want to insert something in between, just compute a float value in the middle between the two surrounding values:
pk | i | val
------------
1 | 0.0 | hi
0 | 2.0 | hello
2 | 3.0 | goodbye
3 | 4.0 | good day
5 | 6.0 | howdy
6 | 2.5 | hey
This way the number of inserts between the same two values is limited to the resolution of float values but for almost all cases that should be more than sufficient.