Could reviews or inspections be considered part of testing?
-
yes, because testing includes all non-constructive activities
-
no, because they apply to development documentation
-
yes, because both help detect faults and improve quality
-
no, because they are normally applied before testing
Reviews and inspections are static testing techniques that examine documentation or code without execution. Like dynamic testing, their purpose is detecting defects and improving quality, making them part of the broader testing discipline. Static testing finds faults earlier and cheaper than dynamic testing, complementing test execution. The testing lifecycle includes both static and dynamic techniques.
Yes — reviews and inspections are part of testing because both are quality-assurance activities aimed at detecting faults early and improving overall product quality, which is the broader goal of testing (not just running code). Standard testing theory (as in ISTQB) treats testing as encompassing both static techniques (reviews, inspections, walkthroughs of requirements/design/code) and dynamic techniques (executing code). The other options are wrong: testing isn't defined as 'all non-constructive activities' (too vague/incorrect framing), reviews apply to any development artifact not just documentation, and reviews are typically done throughout the lifecycle, not strictly 'before' testing — they often run in parallel with or as part of the test strategy.