Do You Have Basic Knowledge About Static Testing Techniques?

Static analysis tools are designed to analyze code without actually executing it. They help identify defects, such as coding errors, security vulnerabilities, and performance issues, before the code is run or deployed. By analyzing the code's structure, syntax, and logic, these tools can detect potential problems that may lead to failures or bugs in the software. Therefore, the statement "They help you find defects rather than failures" is correct as it highlights the primary purpose of static analysis tools.

Error guessing is not a static testing technique because it is an informal and unstructured approach to testing. It involves using personal experience and intuition to identify potential errors or issues in the software without following a specific set of predefined test cases or procedures. Unlike static testing techniques such as walkthroughs, inspections, and data flow analysis, error guessing does not involve analyzing the code or documentation but relies on the tester's knowledge and creativity to guess potential errors.

A moderator in a review meeting is responsible for mediating between people. This means that they facilitate communication and ensure that everyone has a chance to express their opinions and ideas. They help to maintain a productive and respectful atmosphere, mediating any conflicts or disagreements that may arise during the meeting. The moderator's role is to ensure that the meeting stays on track and that all participants have a fair and equal opportunity to contribute.

Inspections are a methodical examination of software artifacts to identify defects and improve quality. While inspections can uncover variables not defined in the code, spelling and grammar faults in documents, and requirements that have been omitted from design documents, they do not directly determine how much of the code has been covered. Code coverage is typically measured through other techniques such as code coverage tools or test coverage analysis. Therefore, the answer "How much of the code has been covered" is not something that inspections specifically address.

A walkthrough is different from a formal review because in a walkthrough, individual preparation by the reviewers is optional. In a formal review, it is typically expected that reviewers come prepared with their own analysis and findings. This means that in a walkthrough, reviewers have the option to prepare individually or not, whereas in a formal review, individual preparation is typically required.