Software product lines are the common trend in software development which helps in reducing the development cost. Mostly the interaction faults are very difficult to identify during the process of debugging. By the use of combinatorial testing a set of features can be identified and all small combinations can be verified to a certain level only. By introducing random testing can improve the accuracy and ratio of t-wise fault detection. Through random testing can acquire a higher level of improvements over the combinatorial testing which will be under the budgetary limit of the product. Random testing can provide minimum guarantees on the probability of fault detection at any interaction level using the set of theories. For example, random testing becomes even more effective as the number of features increases and converges toward equal effectiveness with combinatorial testing. Given that combinatorial testing entails significant computational overhead in the presence of hundreds or thousands of features, the results suggest that there are realistic scenarios in which random testing may outperform combinatorial testing in large systems. Furthermore, in common situations where test budgets are constrained and unlike combinatorial testing, random testing can still provide minimum guarantees on the probability of fault detection at any interaction level. However, when constraints are present among features, then random testing can fare arbitrarily worse than combinatorial testing.

1. NIST, "The economic impacts of inadequate infrastructure for software testing," March 2003.
2. M. Grindal, J. Offutt, and S. Andler, "Combination testing strategies: a survey," Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 167–199, March 2005.
3. T. J. Ostrand and M. J. Balcer, "The category-partition method for specifying and generating functional tests," Communications of the ACM, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 676–686,June 1988.
4. Y. K. Malaiya, "Antirandom testing: getting the most out of black-box testing," in Proceeding of the International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, October 1995, pp. 86–95.
5. J. A. Whittaker and M. G. Thomason, "A markov chain model for statistical software testing," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 812–824, 1994.
6. R. C. Bryce and C. J. Colbourn, "Prioritized interaction testing for pair-wise coverage with seeding and avoids," Information and Software Technology Journal (IST, Elsevier), vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 960–970, October 2006.
7. K. Burr and W. Young, "Combinatorial test techniques: Table based automation, test generation, and code coverage," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Testing Analysis and Review, October 1998, pp. 503–513.
8. S. R. Dalal, A. Karunanithi, J. Leaton, G. Patton, and B. M. Horowitz, "Model-based testing in practice," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, May 1999, pp. 285–294.
9. S. Dunietz, W. K. Ehrlich, B. D. Szablak, C. L. Mallows, and A. Iannino, "Applying design of experiments to software testing," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, October 1997, pp. 205–215. 32
10. D. Kuhn and M. Reilly, "An investigation of the applicability of design of experiments to software testing," in Proceedings of the 27th Annual NASA Goddard/IEEE Software Engineering Workshop, October 2002, pp. 91–95.
11. D. R. Kuhn, D. R. Wallace, and A. M. Gallo, "Software fault interactions and implications for software testing," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 418–421, October 2004.
12. R. Mandl, "Orthogonal latin squares an application of experiment design to compiler testing," Communications of the ACM, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 1054–1058, October 1985.
13. C. Yilmaz, M. B. Cohen, and A. Porter, "Covering arrays for efficient fault characterization in complex configuration spaces," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 20–34, January 2006.
14. R. C. Bryce, C. J. Colbourn, and M. B. Cohen, "A framework of greedy methods for constructing interaction tests," in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2005, pp. 146–155.
15. D. M. Cohen, S. R. Dalal, J. Parelius, and G. C. Patton, "The combinatorial design approach to automatic test generation," IEEE Software, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 82–88, October 1996.
16. M. B. Cohen, C. J. Colbourn, P. B. Gibbons, and W. B. Mugridge, "Constructing test suites for interaction testing," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2003, pp. 28–48.
17. C. J. Colbourn, "Combinatorial aspects of covering arrays," Le Matematiche (Catania), vol. 58, pp. 121–167, 2004.
18. R. C. Bryce and C. J. Colbourn, "A density-based greedy algorithm for higher strength covering arrays," Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 37– 53, 2009. 33
19. K. Tai and L. Yu, "A test generation strategy for pair-wise testing," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 109–111, January 2002.
20. Y. Tung and W. Aldiwan, "Automating test case generation for the new generation mission software system," in IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 2000, pp. 431–37.

Combinatorial Testing Random Testing T-wise Fault