A composite application is a software application that is constructed by combining multiple existing functions into a new application. A composite application can use business sources, such as existing software components or modules, as well as information services, including business services and/or Internet web services. Such services may be provided in the context of a service-oriented architecture (SOA) for instance. Services expose application programming interfaces (APIs), which are also referred to as contracts, and which define how consumers—i.e., applications—can interact with the services. A composite application can incorporate the orchestration of its various constituent parts via internal logic that dictates how the functionality provided by these parts interact to generate new, derived functionality. By using existing services, components, and modules, a developer thus may be able to develop a composite application in less time than coding an application from scratch. Development and testing of a composite application is typically performed against the resources that the services provide, such as their contracts (e.g., APIs).
As noted in the background section, a composite application is constructed by combining multiple existing functions, which may be provided by services and other components, into a new application. An underlying challenge of especially complex composite applications is understanding the constituent parts of a composite application. The underlying services and components of the composite application may change over time, and may be modified by different developers, making it difficult without conducting extensive and time-consuming manual analysis exactly what services and components make up the composite application.
Techniques disclosed herein leverage heretofore unrelated testing of such an application to determine the application's constituent resources. A composite application can be referred to as an application under test (AUT), which is an application that is subjected to a battery of tests to ensure that the application is performing correctly. Each test is predefined, and tests one or more separate underlying services or components of an application. Such tests typically interact with the underlying services, and do so through the contracts that the services expose. A contract is considered a resource of the test. Thus, during development of a composite application, as well as afterwards, the application is subjected to selected tests to ensure and verify that the application operates properly.
The techniques disclosed herein leverage such existing tests to use them advantageously for a heretofore different purpose for which the tests were not intended: determining a test-centric model of an application to identify its services from its constituent resources. Each resource specified by each of a number of selected tests is added to a test-centric model, such as, for example, as a node of a graph. The test or tests specifying a given resource are linked to the resource within the model. As such, the application's composition is defined using the tests in question. A developer can thus use predefined tests' resources to determine the actual current services constituting an application.
Within the test-centric model of an application, various other information can further be linked to the resources contained within the model. Requirements of each test pertaining to an resource can be linked to the resource within the model. Detected defects of a resource can likewise be linked to the resource within the test-centric model. As such, besides providing for a way to identify the composition of an application precisely, the techniques disclosed herein also provide a way by which a developer or tester can enrich information regarding the application, such as the requirements of its underlying resources and any found defects within those resources.
As such, the composite application 100 is made up of services 104A, 104B, . . . , 104N, which are collectively referred to as the services 104. The services 104 expose contracts, which are referred to as resources 102A, 102B, . . . , 102N, and which are collectively referred to as the resources 102. Each resource 102 is a contract belonging to a different service, component, module, or other type of software part, each of which is generically encompassed under the term terminology “service” herein. In a given composite application 100, there can be tens, hundreds, or even more of such resources 102. As noted above, maintaining the identities of such constituent resources 102 can be a time-consuming manual exercise, and can be error prone.
The method 200 initializes a test-centric model of the composite application 100 (202). For instance, the test-centric model may be initialized to be an empty model containing no resources 102. The test-centric model will ultimately define a composition of the application 100 via its constituent resources 102 as identified by tests. As such, a list of tests that may ordinarily be used to test the composite application 100 is received (204). For instance, a user may select one or more such tests. It can therefore be said that the identification of such tests is received.
The completeness of the composition of the application 100 as defined by the test-centric model may be as complete as the list of tests and the resources used by the tests in the list. However, in general, a complete battery of such tests is typically maintained to test each different functionality of the composite application 100. Each such test may stress a different resource 102 or group of resources 102 of the composite application 100.
What is referred to as the current test is set to any arbitrary test within the list of tests (206), such as the first test within the list. A list of resources 102 specified by the current test is determined or identified (208). This can be achieved by querying the current test, for instance. It is noted that determining the list of resources 102 does not involve running the current test. That is, actually using the test for its intended purpose—testing one or more resources 102 of the composite application 100—is not performed or achieved. However, each test delineates the services or other resources 102 that the test uses.
To query the current test, one of three different techniques may be employed. First, an interface of the current test may be queried, where the interface is particular to the method 200 or the computer program performing the method 200. As such, the test is a priori constructed to be compatible with the method 200. That is, the test is designed to ensure that it has an interface that is compatible with the manner by which the method 200 performs queries of tests.
Second, an interface of the current test may be queried, but where the interface is particular to the test, and it is the method 200 or the computer program performing the method 200 that is a priori constructed to be compatible with the test. That is, the method 200 is designed to ensure that it is able to query the interface of the current test. The difference between the former technique and the latter technique is, therefore, that in the former technique the test is designed in contemplation of the method 200, whereas in the latter technique the method 200 is designed in contemplation of the test.
Third, the method 200 or the computer program performing the method 200 may not query the current test directly, as in the prior two techniques, but rather query middleware that interfaces the method 200 with the test. In this technique, the middleware directly queries the test on behalf of the method 200. The method 200 can thus be designed to just query the middleware, and the middleware updated as appropriate to ensure compatibility with any new interfaces of tests that are developed.
It is noted that the resources 102 may be identified in different ways by different tests, and different tests may specify or reference the same resources 102. For example, one test may identify an resource 102 via a universal resource locator (URL) alphanumeric address, whereas another test may identify the same resource via an Internet protocol (IP) numeric address. However, in general, each resource 102 has some type of generally unique identifier (GUID) by which the method 200 is able to track whether different tests are referring to the same or difference resource 102. In another implementation, other techniques may be employed, though, to verify that apparently different resources 102 are indeed different resources 102.
What is referred to as a current resource is set to any arbitrary resource 102 within the list of resources 102 for the current test (210), such as the first resource 102 within the list. If the current resource is not within the test-centric model (212), then the current resource is added to the model (214). For example, the test-centric model may be represented as a graph that is initialized in part 202 as having a root node corresponding to the composite application 100 and/or the tests that are specified in part 204 (where part 204 is performed prior to part 202). As such, the current resource is added to the test-centric model by adding a vertex or node representing the current resource to the graph, and adding an edge between this node and the root node. It is noted that in other implementations, a root node corresponding to the composite application as a whole may not be present, such that the current resources are added as representative nodes independently to the graph, and a user can define the relationships among the nodes afterwards.
The current test, as well as other information in some implementations, is linked to the current resource within the test-centric model (216). As such, each resource 102 represented within the model has one or more tests linked thereto, which are the tests that specify this resource 102. The other information can include requirements of the current test and/or of the composite application 100 as these requirements pertain to the current resource, defects of the current resource based on the last or any prior running of the current test in relation to the application 100, and so on. Adding such information to the test-centric model renders the model more information rich, and thus permits a user to glean a fuller view of the composite application 100 in addition to its constituent resources 100 during examination of the model.
If there are further resources 102 within the list of resources 102 for the current test that have not yet been processed (218), then the current resource is advanced to another resource 102 within this list that has not yet been processed (220), and the method 200 is repeated at part 212 in relation to the new current resource. Otherwise, processing of the current test is complete. If there are further tests within the list of tests that have not yet been processed (222), then the current test is advanced to another test within this list that has not yet been processed (224), and the method 200 is repeated at part 208 in relation to the new current test. Otherwise, processing of the tests is complete.
The test-centric model is output (226). The test-centric model, as noted above, defines a composition of the composite application 100 via the tests, and thus specifies the constituent resources 102 of the application 100 that are referenced by or specified within the tests. Output of the test-centric model may be static or dynamic. In a static sense, the model can be output by printing a graphical representation of the model, such as of the graph and its nodes that have been described. In a dynamic sense, the model can be output by displaying such a graphical representation on an electronic or other display device such as a computer monitor or screen, and permitting a user to interact with this display to view individual resources 102 in more detail, such as the various information that was linked thereto.
Other types of output of the graph 300 and of the test-centric model itself can be achieved in other implementations, as noted above. For example, a graphical representation of the test-centric model, as a graph and its nodes, may be displayed in one window. In other selectable windows, the information gathered for each resource 102 in part 216 of the method 200 may be displayed. In such an implementation, a user can thus select among the windows to view an overview of the test-centric model as a whole, as well as to drill down into the model to view details regarding each resource 102 contained within the model.
The computing device 402 includes a processor 404 and a computer-readable data storage medium 406. The computer-readable data storage medium 406 can store data representing one or more tests 410, data representing a tests-centric model 412, and a computer program 408. The computer-readable data storage medium 406, and may be a magnetic medium, a semiconductor medium, a volatile medium, a non-volatile medium, and so on.
The processor 404 executes the computer program 408 from the computer-readable data storage medium 408, as indicated by the dotted line 414 between the computer program 408 and the processor 404. Execution of the computer program 408 by the processor 404 causes performance of a method, such as the method 200. As such, the computer program 408 processes one or more tests 410, as indicated by the dotted line 416, to construct the test-centric model 412, as indicated by the dotted line 418. By generating the test-centric model 412, therefore, the computer program 408 identifies the resources 102 of the composite application 100 as has been described.
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/US2012/049065 | 7/31/2012 | WO | 00 | 10/27/2014 |
| Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WO2014/021872 | 2/6/2014 | WO | A |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6006028 | Aharon | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6381604 | Caughran | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6775824 | Osborne, II | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6934934 | Osborne, II | Aug 2005 | B1 |
| 6978218 | Kolb | Dec 2005 | B1 |
| 7000224 | Osborne, II | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7058534 | Tracy | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7058857 | Dallin | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7171588 | Friedman | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7356436 | Bohizic | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7421621 | Zambrana | Sep 2008 | B1 |
| 7581212 | West et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7631227 | Poisson | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7725496 | Paval | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7752499 | Choudhury | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7934127 | Kelso | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 8145450 | Brown | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8151276 | Grechanik | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8296603 | Matsumoto | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8423962 | Becker | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8458662 | Grechanik | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8473928 | Park | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8639983 | Desai | Jan 2014 | B1 |
| 8719789 | Adler | May 2014 | B2 |
| 8788652 | Ramanath | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8868981 | Glaser | Oct 2014 | B2 |
| 8893138 | Arnold | Nov 2014 | B2 |
| 8904239 | Seren | Dec 2014 | B2 |
| 8914676 | Cao | Dec 2014 | B2 |
| 8966454 | Michelsen | Feb 2015 | B1 |
| 8984487 | Houck | Mar 2015 | B2 |
| 8984490 | Dahan | Mar 2015 | B1 |
| 9009668 | Pasternak | Apr 2015 | B2 |
| 9098633 | Kianovski | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9235490 | Dahan | Jan 2016 | B2 |
| 20040143819 | Cheng | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20050010895 | Reddappagari | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050172269 | Johnson | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050193258 | Sutton | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050204201 | Meenakshisundaram et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20060070035 | Ulrich | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20070240118 | Keren | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20080229149 | Penton | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080270992 | Georgieva et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080276224 | Gyure et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20090217302 | Grechanik | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090307763 | Rawlins | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100107136 | Fildebrandt et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100306772 | Arnold et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110016452 | Gorthi | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110296382 | Pasternak | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120151448 | Becker et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120174074 | Ganai | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120233505 | Acharya | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20130054792 | Sharaf | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130305224 | Eade | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20140045597 | Fernandez | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20150100684 | Maes | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150199197 | Maes | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 02239CH2011 | Jul 2011 | IN |
| Entry |
|---|
| A journey to highly dynamic, self-adaptive service-based applications; Elisabetta Di Nitto • Carlo Ghezzi • Andreas Metzger • Mike Papazoglou • Klaus Pohl—Autom Softw Eng (2008) 15: 313-341 DOI 10.1007/s10515-008-0032-x-30 Jul. 2008. |
| Model-Based Testing of Community-Driven Open-Source GUI Applications—Qing Xie and Atif M. Memon, Department of Computer Science—University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742—22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'06)—2006 IEEE. |
| Testing the Scalability of SaaS Applications—Yu Huang and Qihong Shao,School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University; Wei-Tek Tsai—Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China-Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA), 2011 IEEE International Conference. |
| Korean Intellectual Property Office, International Search Report, Feb. 18, 2013, 10 pages, Daejeon Metropolitan City, Republic of Korea. |
| Kosindrdecha, N, et al., A Test Case Generation Process and Technique, Feb. 1, 2011, 16 pages http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jse.2010.265.287&org=10. |
| European Patent Office, Extended European Search Report Issued in Application No. 12882316.8, Dec. 2, 2015, Germany, 10 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20150143346 A1 | May 2015 | US |