An Evaluation of Random Testing

TLDR

Random testing is often considered a worst‑case approach, whereas structural methods such as path testing—viewed as a form of partition testing—are generally preferred. Simulations and experiments show that random testing can be more cost‑effective and is a viable validation tool compared to partition testing schemes.

Abstract

Random testing of programs has usually (but not always) been viewed as a worst case of program testing. Testing strategies that take into account the program structure are generally preferred. Path testing is an often proposed ideal for structural testing. Path testing is treated here as an instance of partition testing, where by partition testing is meant any testing scheme which forces execution of at least one test case from each subset of a partition of the input domain. Simulation results are presented which suggest that random testing may often be more cost effective than partition testing schemes. Also, results of actual random testing experiments are presented which confirm the viability of random testing as a useful validation tool.