Automated data collection, computation and reporting of content space coverage metrics for software products

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9087155
  • Patent Number
    9,087,155
  • Date Filed
    Tuesday, January 15, 2013
    11 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, July 21, 2015
    9 years ago
Abstract
One or more test results and one or more user stories are received. For each test result in the one or more test results a set of content space coordinates of the one or more test results is compared to a set of content space coordinates of the one or more user stories. Based on the comparison it is determined if one or more user stories have been tested. One or more results of the comparison are then stored.
Description
BACKGROUND

This invention relates generally to processing within a computing environment, and more particularly to automated data collection, computation and reporting of content space coverage metrics for software products.


A new metric is being adopted to help measure the completeness and effectiveness of software product testing, test automation, Functional Verification Testing (FVT) and System Verification Testing (SVT). This metric is called “content coverage” in short-hand form. A full name would be “content space coverage.” It is based on the idea and processes concerning (software product) content spaces. The term “content coverage” is meant to convey parallels and analogs with the “code coverage” metrics. These two coverage metrics express what percentage of an underlying measurement basis has been tested, or tested successfully, or failed, etc. The basis for code coverage is the code itself, at varying levels of detail (e.g., class, entry point, block, line of code). The basis for content coverage is the content space for the software product (or component), at varying levels of detail (noun group, noun, verb, interface, platform, requirement, etc.)


BRIEF SUMMARY

Another embodiment includes a system, the system including a content coverage module circuit configured to receive one or more test results and one or more user stories. For each test result in the one or more test results the content coverage module circuit is further configured to compare a set of content space coordinates of the one or more test results to a set of content space coordinates of the one or more user stories. The system determines if one or more user stories have been tested based on the comparison, and the results are stored.


Additional features and advantages are realized through the techniques of the present invention. Other embodiments and aspects of the invention are described in detail herein and are considered a part of the claimed invention. For a better understanding of the invention with advantages and features, refer to the description and to the drawings.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

Referring now to the drawings wherein like elements are numbered alike in the several FIGURES:



FIG. 1 depicts a schematic diagram of a system for automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics that may be implemented by an embodiment;



FIG. 2 depicts a schematic diagram of a content coverage module in an embodiment; and



FIG. 3 depicts a process flow for automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

An embodiment of the present invention provides for automated data collection, computation and reporting of content space coverage metrics for software products.


A test automation framework includes the capability to associate a test case with a set of content space coordinate values that represent a content space. The content space is a way of representing software content from an outside-in perspective via a set of dimensions. Each of the content space dimensions has values defined in terms of the software itself that concern a particular aspect, such as information abstraction, function, external interface and run-time environment. The dimension values can represent existing content and also new content for the software based on requirements (via content space analysis). The content space can be programmatically traversed, and as this traversal occurs, end-to-end testable units (termed user stories) are output, each corresponding to a particular and identified region of the content space. The set of all output user stories partitions the software content. The set of all user stories and various subsets (e.g. all Power user stories) are used to compute the content coverage metric of various scopes.


The content space coordinate values correlate with a set of business requirements for software under measurement (also referred to herein as an “application”) and for various platforms that the application is developed to execute on. In an embodiment, an application is a defined scope of software, such as a software product, an operating system, a software component of a larger software suite, an end-user application, a web server, a database application, etc. In other embodiments, an application is any software component, the boundary of which is determined by the provider of the software development requirements. The content space coordinates for the tests are output by each test as it executes and collected and reported along with test case execution results. The test results are automatically combined with the full set, or a subset, of user stories. The user stories are generated from the content space for the product release or application that is being tested, and each user story has the content space coordinates for the region it represents. These coordinates are retained in the information comprising the user story. The user stories are testable units of functionality derived from the business requirements. The user stories may include only a single function of the application, or may include multiple interrelated functions, hence sizes of user stories may vary. The resulting content coverage metric is calculated as a ratio of the number user stories tested (from the test results) over the total number of user stories in application, and reported (i.e., via web pages, data files, database, etc.).


Code coverage is a measure of the amount of source code (i.e., lines of code, modules, etc.) that was tested by a set of test cases. Content coverage similarly measures the part of an application (and/or a body of code) that has been tested by a set of test cases; however, content coverage is directed to the amount of a set of business requirements and prior release functionality that has been tested by the test, as measured by user stories generated from the application content space. Testing based on content, i.e., business requirement testing, provides a link between the tested application and the set of requirements that were used as the “blue print” for the application itself. Once the content coverage can be determined, the thoroughness of the set of test cases may be determined.


While code coverage is expressed in lines of code, classes, method, etc., content coverage is expressed in terms of a verb (i.e., a function), a noun (i.e., the thing the function is operating on), one or more interfaces (i.e., a graphical user interface (GUI), the command line, a web service, etc.), and the platform the application is executing on (i.e., the operating system, the hardware, etc.).


Content coverage is useful; however, without automation of the content coverage data, it is of little practical use. Raw data is collected during testing. The resulting data is automatically related to the underlying content space for which the tests have been executed against to allow computation of the metric itself. Then the results are automatically reported with various splits (overall, per platform, per requirement, per license, per noun and verb combination, etc.).


Turning now to FIG. 1, a system 100 for implementing automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics will now be described. In an embodiment, the system 100 includes a host system computer 102 executing computer instructions for implementing automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics. Host system computer 102 may operate in any type of environment that is capable of executing a software application. Host system computer 102 may comprise a high-speed computer processing device, such as a mainframe computer, to manage the volume of operations governed by an entity for which the automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics system is executing. In an embodiment, the host system computer 102 is part of an enterprise (e.g., a commercial business) that implements the automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics.


In an embodiment, the system 100 depicted in FIG. 1 includes one or more client systems 104 through which users at one or more geographic locations may contact the host system computer 102. The client systems 104 are coupled to the host system computer 102 via one or more networks 106. Each client system 104 may be implemented using a general-purpose computer executing a computer program for carrying out the processes described herein. The client systems 104 may be personal computers (e.g., a lap top, a personal digital assistant, a mobile device) or host attached terminals. If the client systems 104 are personal computers, the processing described herein may be shared by a client system 104 and the host system computer 102 (e.g., by providing an applet to the client system 104). Client systems 104 may be operated by authorized users (e.g., programmers) of the automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics system described herein.


The networks 106 may be any type of known network including, but not limited to, a wide area network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), a global network (e.g., Internet), a virtual private network (VPN), and an intranet. The networks 106 may be implemented using a wireless network or any kind of physical network implementation known in the art. A client system 104 may be coupled to the host system computer 102 through multiple networks (e.g., intranet and Internet) so that not all client systems 104 are coupled to the host system computer 102 through the same network. One or more of the client systems 104 and the host system computer 102 may be connected to the networks 106 in a wireless fashion. In one embodiment, the networks 106 include an intranet and one or more client systems 104 executing a user interface application (e.g., a web browser) to contact the host system computer 102 through the networks 106. In another embodiment, the client system 104 is connected directly (i.e., not through the networks 106) to the host system computer 102 and the host system computer 102 contains memory for storing data in support of automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics. Alternatively, a separate storage device (e.g., storage device 112) may be implemented for this purpose.


In an embodiment, the storage device 112 includes a data repository with data relating to the automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics by the system 100, as well as other data/information desired by the entity representing the host system computer 102 of FIG. 1. The storage device 112 is logically addressable as a consolidated data source across a distributed environment that includes networks 106. Information stored in the storage device 112 may be retrieved and manipulated via the host system computer 102 and/or the client systems 104. In an embodiment, the storage device 112 includes one or more databases containing, e.g., automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics system data and corresponding configuration parameters, values, methods, and properties, as well as other related information as will be discussed more fully below. It will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the storage device 112 may also comprise other structures, such as an XML file on the file system or distributed over a network (e.g., one of networks 106), or from a data stream from another server located on a network 106. In addition, all or a portion of the storage device 112 may alternatively be located on a client system 104.


The host system computer 102 depicted in the system of FIG. 1 may be implemented using one or more servers operating in response to a computer program stored in a storage medium accessible by the server. The host system computer 102 may operate as a network server (e.g., a web server) to communicate with the client systems 104. The host system computer 102 handles sending and receiving information to and from the client systems 104 and can perform associated tasks. The host system computer 102 may also include a firewall to prevent unauthorized access to the host system computer 102 and enforce any limitations on authorized access. For instance, an administrator may have access to the entire system and have authority to modify portions of the system. A firewall may be implemented using conventional hardware and/or software as is known in the art.


The host system computer 102 may also operate as an application server. The host system computer 102 executes one or more computer programs to provide the automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics. The host system computer 102 includes a content coverage module 108. As indicated above, processing may be shared by the client systems 104 and the host system computer 102 by providing an application (e.g., java applet) to the client systems 104. Alternatively, the client system 104 can include a stand-alone software application for performing a portion or all of the processing described herein. As previously described, it is understood that separate servers may be utilized to implement the network server functions and the application server functions. Alternatively, the network server, the firewall, and the application server may be implemented by a single server executing computer programs to perform the requisite functions. In an embodiment, the automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics system executes on the same host computer system that executes the application that is being tested. In other embodiments, the automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics system is executed on a separate computer system from the application that is being tested.


It will be understood that the automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics system described in FIG. 1 may be implemented in hardware, software executing on a general purpose computer, or a combination thereof.



FIG. 2 depicts a schematic diagram of a content coverage module in an embodiment. In an embodiment, the content coverage module 206 executes on the host system computer 102 of FIG. 1. The content coverage module 206 receives data and generates output In an embodiment the content coverage module 206 receives a set of test results 202, and data representing a set or subset of business requirements for an application. In an embodiment, the data representing the application is a set of user stories 204. The user stories 204 are based on a set of user requirements and prior release content that are implemented in the software or application under test.


In an embodiment, the set of requirements is partitioned into one or more user stories. In an embodiment, the full set of user stories represents the entirety of the business requirements with no gaps. In addition, no two user stories will overlap (i.e. represent the same business requirement) and some user stories are impacted by multiple requirements. The user stories 204 are generated from the business requirements. In an embodiment, the user stories 204 are automatically generated from the business requirements, using an automated system, and are stored in, for example, a file or a database. The user stories 204 that are planned for a given release are then passed to the content coverage module 206. In an embodiment, a subset of the total user stories may be used to compute content coverage. The user stories 204 may be supplied in a single file or in multiple files.


In an embodiment, the test results 202 are generated as a result of executing one or more test cases. Test cases are user defined as automated or manual tests. The test cases are executed to test a particular aspect of the application to ensure that the application is functioning as specified in the business requirements. When the tests are executed, either manually or using an automated testing system, the results of the tests (i.e., passed, failed, etc.) are collected and recorded. The results include content space coordinate values which indicate which regions of the content space the test has tested. The test results 202 are correlated back to the test cases so that the reports will indicate which tests succeeded and which failed. The test results 202 may be supplied in a single file or in multiple files. In an embodiment, the test results 202 include an indicator to identify if the test was executed manually or if the test was executed automatically.


The test cases are also correlated to the user stories 204. In an embodiment, the test cases are correlated to the user stories 204 using a test case meta file. The test case meta file includes the name of the test case as well as a set of content space coordinates. The set of content space coordinates matches coordinates associated with one or more of the user stories 204. In an embodiment, the content space coordinates include a verb. The verb indicates the function that is being described in the user story, and/or the function that is being tested by the test case. For example, in an application such as a web browser, one function that may be tested is the download of a file. In this case the verb is “download.” The content space coordinates also include a noun. The noun is the object of the verb. Therefore, for a download verb, the noun may be “file.” The content space coordinates also include an interface. The interface is the method of accessing the verb. For a browser the interface may be a GUI. Other interfaces, such as command line, web service, etc. may be used both in the user stories, and in the test cases. In addition, the content space coordinates include a platform. The platform is the operating system and/or the hardware that the application is executing on. Both the user story and the test case may specify one or more platforms. In other embodiment, other properties may be included in the content space coordinates in order to add more granularity to the test cases and/or user stories as would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art.


The test case meta file is created as a bridge between the test cases and the user stories 204. In an embodiment the test case meta file is a json file including a content-space segment such as:














{...


 “cs”: [“noun”:“file”, “verb”:“copy”, “interface”:“CLI”, “platform”:


 “UNIX”]


...}









It will be understood that the json representation of the content space coordinates is only one example provided for purposes of clarity and that, in other embodiments, any method for representing the content space coordinates may be used. Although the example described above uses a single value to represent each of the content space coordinates, it will be understood that in embodiments multiple nouns, verbs, interfaces, and platforms may be specified for a single test case and/or user story. Furthermore, any of the values may be represented by a wildcard character indicating that it is applicable to all values.


When the test case is executed, the results of the test are stored along with the content space coordinates associated to the test case. These results are fed to the content coverage module 206 as test results 202. The content coverage module 206 matches the content space coordinates in the test results 202 with the content space coordinates in the user stories 204, and then generates the results of the match. In an embodiment, the generated data is fed to a dashboard 208, and/or a data file 210. The dashboard 208 includes a hyper-text markup language (HTML) page viewable in a web browser, or a set of data that is viewable in a GUI application. In an embodiment, the data file 210 is a comma separate value (CSV) file, a text file, or a database. In an embodiment, a dashboard 208 is generated from the data file 210 instead of, or along with, being generated as a direct output of the content coverage module 206. In an embodiment, an error, such as an error matching the content space coordinates of a test case to a user story, is saved in an error data file 212. In an embodiment, the dashboard 208 includes a link or URL that allows a user to download the error data file 212.



FIG. 3 depicts a process flow for automated data collection, computation, and reporting of content space coverage metrics. In an embodiment, the process flow of FIG. 3 is executed by the content coverage module 108 of FIG. 1. At block 302, a set of test results is received. The test results include content space coordinates corresponding to the test cases that were executed. At block 304, all of the user stories are retrieved. The user stories may be retrieved from a file on a file system, a database, a web service, or other storage locations and methods as is known in the art. At block 306 the test result is compared to the user story using the content space coordinates of each. In an embodiment, the coordinates may represent multiple sets of coordinates as stated above. At block 308, the user stories that were tested are determined based on the comparison. At block 312, it is determined if any errors were detected. In an embodiment, an error may occur if only some of the coordinates were matched (i.e., fewer than 4 coordinates were matched), if there was no match for a valid test coordinate, it there was no match at all, or if there are multiple conflicting matches to the coordinates. If there was at least one good match, then processing continues at block 310, where the output data is updated to reflect the user stories that were tested, as well as the results of the test. At block 314, it is determined if there are more tests results to process. If there are more test results to process, then processing continues at block 306, and blocks 306-316 are processed for each of the remaining test results. Otherwise, if there are no more test results, then at block 318, a content coverage value is computed. In an embodiment, the content coverage is computed as a percentage by dividing the tested user stories, as determined by the content coverage module, by the total number of user stories, as determined by the retrieved user stories. The results of the computing as well as the results of the comparison of the test results to the user stories are output at block 320.


In an embodiment, the results of the computing as well as the results of the comparison of the test results to the user stories are output directly to a dashboard, such as the dashboard 208 of FIG. 2. The dashboard may include various automated visualizations of overall test results, for example in the form of a tree map. In an additional embodiment, the output is sent to an output file or database, such as the data file 210 of FIG. 2. In yet another embodiment the results are output to both a dashboard, and an output file. The output may also include an error file, such as the error data file 212 of FIG. 2.


Returning to block 312, if at least one error is detected, the error is logged in an error file. In an embodiment the error is logged to a database. It will be understood that the content space coordinates may reference multiple nouns, verbs, interfaces, and platforms, and therefore, in an embodiment, multiple user stories may match a single test result. Furthermore, it is possible that multiple combinations of the content space coordinates may not match any user stories and therefore may result in multiple errors. In addition, an error may be found while at the same time a valid match is also found resulting in both one or more entries in the error log, as well as one or more entries in the output record.


Technical effects and benefits include providing a consistent, simple, cross-product and cross-release metric of the completeness and other quality aspects of a broad range of testing. This new metric has the additional advantage of directly relating user requirements, use cases and similar software product elements of stakeholder to business value. The computational basis for the metric is meaningful, realistic and inherently tied to business value. A further benefit is that consistent content coverage metrics are automatically computed and compared for new function and prior release functionality. An additional benefit is that consistent content coverage metrics are automatically computed and compared across supported platform environments. Further benefits include that content coverage is tracked across sprint (iterations) and releases for reasonable and realistic improvements. Yet another benefit is that test completeness is automatically measured and reported with various break downs (e.g. by requirement, by platform, by noun, etc.). A further benefit is that end-to-end automation allows very low overhead and frequent update of content coverage metrics.


The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the invention. As used herein, the singular forms “a”, “an” and “the” are intended to include the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It will be further understood that the terms “comprises” and/or “comprising,” when used in this specification, specify the presence of stated features, integers, steps, operations, elements, and/or components, but do not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps, operations, elements, components, and/or groups thereof.


The corresponding structures, materials, acts, and equivalents of all means or step plus function elements in the claims below are intended to include any structure, material, or act for performing the function in combination with other claimed elements as specifically claimed. The description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention in the form disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention. The embodiment was chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention and the practical application, and to enable others of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention for various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated.


As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present invention may be embodied as a system, method or computer program product. Accordingly, aspects of the present invention may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.” Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon.


Any combination of one or more computer readable medium(s) may be utilized. The computer readable medium may be a computer readable signal medium or a computer readable storage medium. A computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium would include the following: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.


A computer readable signal medium may include a propagated data signal with computer readable program code embodied therein, for example, in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may take any of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, electro-magnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. A computer readable signal medium may be any computer readable medium that is not a computer readable storage medium and that can communicate, propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.


Program code embodied on a computer readable medium may be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including but not limited to wireless, wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination of the foregoing.


Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of the present invention may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).


Aspects of the present invention are described above with reference to flowchart illustrations and/or schematic diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems) and computer program products according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.


These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium that can direct a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable medium produce an article of manufacture including instructions which implement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.


The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, other programmable apparatus or other devices to produce a computer implemented process such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide processes for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.


As described above, embodiments can be embodied in the form of computer-implemented processes and apparatuses for practicing those processes. In embodiments, the invention is embodied in computer program code executed by one or more network elements. Embodiments include a computer program product on a computer usable medium with computer program code logic containing instructions embodied in tangible media as an article of manufacture. Exemplary articles of manufacture for computer usable medium may include floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, universal serial bus (USB) flash drives, or any other computer-readable storage medium, wherein, when the computer program code logic is loaded into and executed by a computer, the computer becomes an apparatus for practicing the invention. Embodiments include computer program code logic, for example, whether stored in a storage medium, loaded into and/or executed by a computer, or transmitted over some transmission medium, such as over electrical wiring or cabling, through fiber optics, or via electromagnetic radiation, wherein, when the computer program code logic is loaded into and executed by a computer, the computer becomes an apparatus for practicing the invention. When implemented on a general-purpose microprocessor, the computer program code logic segments configure the microprocessor to create specific logic circuits.


The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods, and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in the flowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s). It should also be noted that, in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of the order noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the functionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specified functions or acts, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.

Claims
  • 1. A system, comprising: a content coverage module circuit, the content coverage module circuit configured to, perform a method comprising:receiving one or more test results;receiving one or more user stories;for each test result in the one or more test results: comparing a set of content space coordinates of the one or more test results to a set of content space coordinates of the one or more user stories; anddetermining if one or more user stories have been tested responsive to the comparing;storing one or more results of the determining; andcalculating content coverage of the one or more test results by dividing the tested user stories by a count of the one or more user stories.
  • 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the set of content space coordinates comprises a verb and a noun.
  • 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the set of content space coordinates further comprises an interface and a platform.
  • 4. The system of claim 3, wherein one or more of the interface and the platform comprise a value that includes a table having one or more values.
  • 5. The system of claim 3, wherein one or more of the noun, the verb, the interface, and the platform comprise a table having one or more values.
  • 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more results of the determining are displayed in a dashboard.
US Referenced Citations (134)
Number Name Date Kind
5617568 Ault et al. Apr 1997 A
6342907 Petty et al. Jan 2002 B1
6367077 Brodersen et al. Apr 2002 B1
6536036 Pavela Mar 2003 B1
6799718 Chan et al. Oct 2004 B2
6910041 Exton et al. Jun 2005 B2
7000184 Matveyenko et al. Feb 2006 B2
7127707 Mishra et al. Oct 2006 B1
7139737 Takahashi et al. Nov 2006 B2
7149699 Barnard et al. Dec 2006 B2
7210066 Mandava et al. Apr 2007 B2
7272752 Farchi et al. Sep 2007 B2
7467198 Goodman et al. Dec 2008 B2
7467202 Savchuk Dec 2008 B2
7503037 Banerjee et al. Mar 2009 B2
7509626 Barnes et al. Mar 2009 B1
7512957 Cohen et al. Mar 2009 B2
7530057 Babcock May 2009 B2
7555742 Iborra et al. Jun 2009 B2
7562338 Knutson et al. Jul 2009 B2
7581205 Massoudi Aug 2009 B1
7587636 Tillmann et al. Sep 2009 B2
7752606 Savage Jul 2010 B2
7761591 Graham Jul 2010 B2
7778899 Scumniotales et al. Aug 2010 B2
7861178 Lui et al. Dec 2010 B2
7904890 Hsieh et al. Mar 2011 B1
7979796 Williams et al. Jul 2011 B2
8006222 Ruhe Aug 2011 B2
8032860 Piehler et al. Oct 2011 B2
8037453 Zawadzki Oct 2011 B1
8069435 Lai Nov 2011 B1
8104018 Chessell et al. Jan 2012 B2
8112814 Shimizu Feb 2012 B2
8347263 Offer Jan 2013 B1
8407669 Yee et al. Mar 2013 B2
8429708 Tandon Apr 2013 B1
8458646 Knutson et al. Jun 2013 B2
8566779 Sukhenko et al. Oct 2013 B2
8577937 Offer Nov 2013 B1
8645341 Salman et al. Feb 2014 B2
8645907 Jain et al. Feb 2014 B2
8701078 Holler et al. Apr 2014 B1
8707248 Sawant et al. Apr 2014 B2
8875088 Holler et al. Oct 2014 B1
20010013024 Takahashi et al. Aug 2001 A1
20020016953 Sollich Feb 2002 A1
20020111808 Feinberg Aug 2002 A1
20020149614 Biebesheimer et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020165912 Wenocur et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020178360 Wenocur et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020194483 Wenocur et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020194501 Wenocur et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020199001 Wenocur et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020199096 Wenocur et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030009694 Wenocur et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030041110 Wenocur et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030056173 Copenhaver et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030093716 Farchi et al. May 2003 A1
20030121011 Carter Jun 2003 A1
20040025166 Adlung et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040143811 Kaelicke et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040204970 Boden et al. Oct 2004 A1
20050039045 Wheeler Feb 2005 A1
20050044197 Lai Feb 2005 A1
20050055399 Savchuk Mar 2005 A1
20050114331 Wang et al. May 2005 A1
20050114771 Piehler et al. May 2005 A1
20050114830 Knutson et al. May 2005 A1
20050144529 Gotz et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050160405 Lunia et al. Jul 2005 A1
20060036935 Warner et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060150200 Cohen et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060230410 Kurganov et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060287959 Blecken Dec 2006 A1
20070005300 Haggerty et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070006160 Kunz et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070156693 Soin et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070168918 Metherall et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070250815 Bendapudi et al. Oct 2007 A1
20080027742 Maeda Jan 2008 A1
20080066071 Jain et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080102422 Hayes et al. May 2008 A1
20080120602 Comstock et al. May 2008 A1
20080148253 Badwe et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080229278 Liu et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080244557 Yeung et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080263505 St. Clair et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080270981 Hutchison et al. Oct 2008 A1
20090031286 Yee et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090037912 Stoitsev et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090119779 Dean et al. May 2009 A1
20090259985 Knutson et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090271319 Bromley et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090271760 Ellinger Oct 2009 A1
20100169862 Wolf et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100180258 Takahashi Jul 2010 A1
20100228683 Ansley et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100251379 Myers et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100269095 King et al. Oct 2010 A1
20100313179 Groves et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110066420 Bassin et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110088014 Becker et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110131134 Ferris et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110131315 Ferris et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110138358 Rau et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110154378 Kishan et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110239227 Schaefer et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110246540 Salman et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110264649 Hsiao et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110295701 Phan Dec 2011 A1
20120005209 Rinearson et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120005692 Bulko et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120011455 Subramanian et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120054250 Williams et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120158527 Cannelongo et al. Jun 2012 A1
20120158669 Morsi et al. Jun 2012 A1
20120159441 Ghaisas Jun 2012 A1
20120174194 Furukawa Jul 2012 A1
20120210243 Uhma et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120246609 Boden et al. Sep 2012 A1
20120246611 Sawant et al. Sep 2012 A1
20120291010 Hutchison et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120304248 Watts et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120311003 Kuznetsov et al. Dec 2012 A1
20130024847 Browne et al. Jan 2013 A1
20130061200 Roberts et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130216205 Suri et al. Aug 2013 A1
20130326637 Fang et al. Dec 2013 A1
20140013440 Thakur et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140053127 Madison et al. Feb 2014 A1
20140123107 Rajagopalan May 2014 A1
20140201704 Boden et al. Jul 2014 A1
20150020053 Boden et al. Jan 2015 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (5)
Number Date Country
2680978 Apr 2010 CA
101833507 Dec 2011 CN
2006195529 Jul 2006 JP
823227 Apr 2008 KR
2011031328 Mar 2011 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (11)
Entry
International Search Report and Written Opinion: International Application No. PCT/IB2014/058076, International filing date: Jan. 6, 2014; Date of mailing Apr. 21, 2014.
Achim D. Brucker et al., “HOL-TestGen An Interactive Test-case Generation Framework,”; M. Chechik and M. Wirsing (Eds.): FASE 2009, LNCS 5503, pp. 417-420, 2009.
L. Chung et al., “On Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, v.5600, pp. 363-379, 2009.
IBM, “Method and System for Dynamically Unloading and Loading Software Applications from a Peer-to-Peer Platform”, IP.com IPCOM000193302D, Feb. 18, 2010, pp. 1-3.
Anonymous, “Standardization for the Configuration of Heterogeneous Platforms Through Schema-Based Platform Tag Definitions”, IP.com IPCOM000020720D, Dec. 10, 2003, pp. 1-5.
Huaikou Miao et al., “An Approach to Generating Test Cases for Testing Component-based Web Applications,”; Workshop on Intelligent Information Technology Application, Dec. 2-3, 2007, p. 264-269.
Yara, P, et al. “Global Software Development with Cloud Platforms”, Gotel, O. et al. (eds): SEAFOOD 2009, LNBIP 35, pp. 81-95, 2009.
Wei Yu, “Refactoring Use Case Models on Episodes,” Thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, Concordia Univ., Montreal, Quebec, Mar. 2004.
Leffingwell, “A Rally Software Development Corporation Whitepaper—Agile Software Development with Verification and Validation in . . . ”; 2011, [retrieved Feb. 3, 2015]; retrieved fm internet <URL:http://www.ultertechnologies.com/docs/agile.pdf> 33 pgs.
European Examination Report for Application No. EP10776347.6-1957, dated Oct. 3, 2014, 6 pgs.
Leffingwell, “A Rally Software Development Corporation Whitepaper—Agile Software Development with Verification and Validation in . . . ”, 2011, [retrieved Feb. 3, 2015]; retrieved fm internet <URL:http://www.ultertechnologies.com/docs/agile.pdf> 33 pgs.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20140201713 A1 Jul 2014 US