Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Michael A. Hennell

dblp:37/6670 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
13ranked-venue papers
8as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 10 · 5 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 2 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-authorTheory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
5 papers
Program analysis · 38% Software testing · 38% Empirical software engineering · 25%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis
static analysis
0.021985
The Causes and Effects of Infeasible Paths in Computer Programs · ICSE 1985
A Static Analysis of the NAG Library · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1980
Program analysis › control flow analysis
infeasible path detection
0.021985
The Causes and Effects of Infeasible Paths in Computer Programs · ICSE 1985
Experience with Path Analysis and Testing of Programs · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1980
Software testing › test coverage
path coverage
0.011985
The Causes and Effects of Infeasible Paths in Computer Programs · ICSE 1985
Software testing
test coverage
0.011985
The Causes and Effects of Infeasible Paths in Computer Programs · ICSE 1985
Empirical software engineering › software evaluation
tool evaluation
0.011984
Assessing a Class of Software Tools · ICSE 1984
Software testing › structural testing
path testing
0.011980
Experience with Path Analysis and Testing of Programs · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1980
Empirical software engineering › software metrics
control flow complexity
0.011979
A Measure of Control Flow Complexity in Program Text · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1979
Empirical software engineering › software metrics
software complexity metrics
0.011979
A Measure of Control Flow Complexity in Program Text · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1979

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

path analysis · 0.0allegations · 0.0cyclomatic complexity · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2008 The First Thirty Years: Experience with Software Verification
Michael A. Hennell
TAP1
2006 On the relationship between two control-flow coverage criteria: all JJ-paths and MCDC
Martin R. Woodward, Michael A. Hennell
Inf. Softw. Technol.2
2006 A Tribute to Martin Woodward
A. Jefferson Offutt, Derek Yates, Robert M. Hierons, Michael A. Hennell, Peter Mitchell
Softw. Test. Verification Reliab.5
2004 Guest Editorial: An industrial viewpoint
abstract
A curious facet of software development is the poor uptake of many of the principles of software testing in industrial environments.In some industries, notably the avionics and nuclear sectors, software producers have no choice but to demonstrate thorough testing of their software.Interestingly, parts of the telecommunications industry, although answerable to no certification body, have also always had a tradition of rigorously testing their software, probably as a result of pioneering research at Bell Labs in New Jersey back in the 1960s.From an industry viewpoint, there is often a fear that bad news, brought to light by a rigorous testing process, will extend the time-to-market and result in a loss of market share.However, part of the problem of poor uptake must be borne by academic researchers because industry still lacks answers to key motivating factors such as:• What is the quality gain per unit cost?• What is the benefit in terms of customer satisfaction?• What is the long-term financial benefit?Answers to these and other questions would help testers make a strong case to managers for adequate resources (time, tools and people) to perform testing to significantly higher standards.It is pleasing to see that the two papers included in this issue of the journal do address real-world issues of industrial relevance.Although the techniques discussed in the papers are very different (one is concerned with software inspections, the other with testing embedded systems using modelling, simulation and design-of-experiments), they do, in essence, share a common concern: the need for an effective oracle.An oracle is an arbiter of software behaviour that is able to judge what is correct or, at least, what is deemed to be acceptable.In the case of inspections the oracle is human of course; in the other case discussed here, the oracle is a simulation model of the desired system and is therefore amenable to automation.In the first paper, 'Eight maxims for software inspectors', Diane Kelly and Terry Shepard describe how they collected the comments of inspectors over a period of three years and organized these comments into themes, with the net result being the synthesis of the eight maxims, i.e. suggested rules for effective inspections.Software inspection is one of the few verification and validation (V&V) techniques widely used in industry.It could be argued that it should always be used because there are things that humans can find which no automated tool will detect.On the other hand, the expense of deploying human resources is considerable and a balance needs to be struck between human resource usage and automation.The paper does not consider the relationship with automation but it does address important aspects such as maximizing effectiveness by measurement, standards and control.For example, given the expense of such a people-centric activity, it is important to match people's expertise with the task at hand, otherwise effort could be wasted or, at best, it might be less fruitful
Michael A. Hennell
Softw. Test. Verification Reliab.1
1991 How to Avoid Systematic Software Testing
abstract
Abstract The paper considers some of the reasons advanced by commercial and industrial institutions in order to avoid using analysis and test tools. These insights serve to explain why so few tools are currently in use in such organisations. There is clearly a challenge for the testing community to meet, and this paper is a faltering step towards formulating the goals.
Michael A. Hennell
Softw. Test. Verification Reliab.1
1985 The Causes and Effects of Infeasible Paths in Computer Programs
David Hedley, Michael A. Hennell
ICSE2
1984 Assessing a Class of Software Tools
Michael A. Hennell, David Hedley, I. J. Riddell
ICSE1
1980 A Static Analysis of the NAG Library
abstract
This paper reports results obtained from a static analysis of the NAG Mark 4 Fortran numerical algorithms library.
Michael A. Hennell, J. Alan Prudom
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
1980 Experience with Path Analysis and Testing of Programs
abstract
There are a number of practical difficulties in performing a path testing strategy for computer programs. One problem is in deciding which paths, out of a possible infinity, to use as test cases. A hierarchy of structural test metrics is suggested to direct the choide and to monitor the coverge of test paths. Another problem is that many of the chosen paths may be infeasible in the sense that no test data can ever execute them. Experience with the use of "allegations" to circumvent this problem and prevent the static generation of many infeasible paths is reported.
Martin R. Woodward, David Hedley, Michael A. Hennell
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.3
1979 An Experimental Testbed for Numerical Software, Part 2: ALGOL 68
abstract
In this paper we describe the extension of an existing FORTRAN IV numerical software testbed (Hennell, 1978) to enable ALGOL 68 programs to be investigated. The extensions necessary were two-fold; firstly, a complete rewrite of the first phase, a static analysis in which the source text is reformatted (for reasons stated within this paper), analysed for all possible control jumps and statistics on language constructs are collected. The second major extension was to incorporate into the second phase an existing ALGOL 68 compiler which after some modification enables dynamic execution histories to be collected in a data base. These modifications to the compiler represent extensions to the language definition which enable user programs to trace themselves. The utilisation of this compiler restricts source code programs to be written in ALGOL 68s, an official ALGOL 68 subset (Hibbard, 1974). The third, analysis, phase is essentially identical in both the FORTRAN and ALGOL 68 systems.
Michael A. Hennell, David Hedley
Comput. J.1
1979 A Measure of Control Flow Complexity in Program Text
abstract
This paper discusses the need for measures of complexity and unstructuredness of programs. A simple language independent concept is put forward as a measure of control flow complexity in program text and is then developed for use as a measure of unstructuredness. The proposed metric is compared with other metrics, the most notable of which is the cyclomatic complexity measure. Some experience with automatic tools for obtaining these metrics is reported.
Martin R. Woodward, Michael A. Hennell, David Hedley
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.2
1978 An Experimental Testbed for Numerical Software
abstract
This paper describes an experimental testbed facility designed to examine some of the problems which arise in the implementation of high quality numerical software libraries. The testbed is used to measure the effectiveness of test programs. Effectiveness here is used in the sense that these test programs should ensure that the routine implementation is error free rather than to examine the numerical properties of the algorithm. The testbed has been used in extensive investigations of the stringent test programs of the NAG numerical algorithms library (Ford and Hague, 1974) and continuation of this work is seen as a major application for the testbed.
Michael A. Hennell
Comput. J.1
1976 On Program Analysis
Michael A. Hennell, Martin R. Woodward, David Hedley
Inf. Process. Lett.1