Patent Grant
9262404
This application claims priority to Indian provisional patent application No. 122/CHE/2012, filed Jan. 12, 2012, and to the corresponding Indian non-provisional patent application, given the same serial number by the Indian Patent Office as the provisional patent application, No. 122/CHE/2012, and that was received at the Indian Patent Office on Dec. 13, 2012. Both applications are entirely incorporated by reference.
This disclosure relates to test scenarios, and test conditions and expected results (TCERs). More specifically, this disclosure relates to systems and methods (generally referred to as systems) for generating test scenarios and TCERs from natural language (e.g., English language) specification documents.
The system may be better understood with reference to the following drawings and description. In the figures, like reference numerals designate corresponding parts throughout the different views.
The present systems and methods described herein may be embodied in a number of different forms. Not all of the depicted components may be required, however, and some implementations may include additional, different, or fewer components from those expressly described in this disclosure. Variations in the arrangement and type of the components may be made without departing from the spirit or scope of the claims as set forth herein.
It is noted that this description discusses document analysis. The analysis operates on units of information in the document. The units of information, as examples, may include full sentences, sentence fragments, phrases, or any other sequence of one or more words. In some examples given below, the units of information are statements, such as requirements statements in a requirements specification. The statements may or may not be full sentences. Thus, while some examples may refer specifically to sentence analysis or statement analysis, the techniques described below are not limited to sentences or statements, but may be applied to other units of information present in a document. For instance, the document analysis methods described in this description may be applied to both requirements statements and requirements sentences in a same or similar way.
The network 110 may follow any of a wide variety of network topologies and technologies. As examples, the network 110 may include Local Area Networks (LANs), Wide Area Networks (WANs), Internet connections, Ethernet networks, or Fiber Distributed Data Interconnect (FDDI) packet switched networks that may communicate Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) packets, or any data following any other communication protocol. The network 110 provides a transport mechanism or interconnection of multiple transport mechanisms supporting data exchange between the system 4000 and any source of documents to analyze, including the requirements document 104.
A processor 1002 in the system 4000 may analyze the requirement statements to determine the test artifacts. A requirement statement may, for example, be implemented as a single sentence or other sequence of one or more words. The requirement statement may, for example, be in unconstrained natural language, structured formats, or model based formats. An example of a requirement statement in a structured format may be a requirement statement limited to subject, action and object. Such a restriction may exclude requirement statements with multiple objects, or requirement statements with nouns which are neither subjects nor objects. Other examples are possible.
In some instances, the requirement statements may include data that is not intended for processing. Such data may be marked (e.g., the data not intended for processing may be enclosed in brackets). The requirement statements may first be processed by the preprocessor 1008 as described in more detail below. Among other things, the preprocessor 1008 may remove data enclosed in brackets as well as the brackets themselves. The processor 1002 may generate, (e.g., on the display 114), an analysis report 4016. The analysis report 4016 may specify the artifacts, test artifacts or any other analysis details that the system 4000 determines.
An artifact may be a tangible by-product produced during the development of software (e.g., a use case or a class diagram). Artifacts of a software project may be or resemble deliverables of the software project, though the software itself (i.e., the released end-product) may not be an artifact. A test artifact may be a tangible by-product produced during software testing. Test artifacts may relate to a characteristic of a requirement statement. Examples of test artifacts may include an indication of one or more of the following: requirement testability, requirement intent, test scenario, test conditions, expected results, requirement category, requirement data and requirement ambiguity. Testability artifacts, intent artifacts, category artifacts, and data artifacts may be examples of test artifacts, as well as or alternatively an ambiguous phrase identified in a requirement statement. For example, the test artifacts may include: Testability, specifying, for example, whether the requirement statement is testable; Intent, specifying, for example, the intent or purpose of the requirement statement; Category, specifying, for example, what type of requirement the requirement statement establishes; Data, specifying, for example, the data that the requirement statement operates on; and Ambiguity, specifying whether all or parts of a requirement statement are ambiguous with regard to its testability; The test scenarios, the test conditions and the expected results. The system 4000 may determine additional, fewer, or different artifacts, including grammatical correctness of the requirement statement in whole or in part.
In some requirements testing systems and methods, a requirement statement is obtained and stored in a memory. The requirement statement is submitted to a grammatical parser executed by a processor to obtain parser outputs characterizing the requirement statement. A test artifact ruleset is applied with the processor to the parser outputs to determine a test artifact applicable to the requirement statement.
These and other requirements testing systems and methods allow for developers to check for testability and various features of statements and documents. Another benefit of the requirements testing system is that it facilitates creation of test artifacts from requirement statements. The test artifacts reduce testing cycle time, effort, and expense, and improve test quality. As a result, the resulting software application is more reliable, less expensive, and is more timely delivered. This allows developers to implement complex statements and documents in less time and with fewer mistakes or ambiguities, increasing efficiency and effectiveness of the requirements statements. Requirements testing systems also result in various other advantages and effects.
In some instances, it may be beneficial to identify and review one or more test artifacts, such as one or more Test Scenarios, Test Conditions and Expected Results and/or the Test Hints, each of which is explained in more detail below. However, there are significant technical challenges involved with generating these test artifacts in a consistent, accurate, and reliable way. The technical implementation of the requirement testing system addresses these technical challenges. The resulting requirement testing system is less error prone, may in some instances provide a guarantee on completeness, may be very efficient and objective (and not time consuming or subjective), and/or may not require any extra effort to build traceability and audit compliance.
The requirement testing system 4000 may include a communication interface 108, processor 1002, memory 4002, and/or display 114,
The memory 4002 may also or alternatively include pre-processor logic 1008, an entity extractor 4004, scenario generation module 4006, and/or test condition logic 4008. The entity extractor 4004 may be configured to extract proper nouns from a requirements sentence 106, as discussed later. The scenario generation module 4006 may be configured to generate one or more test scenarios for the requirements sentence 106, as discussed later. The test condition logic 4008 may be configured to generate one or more positive or negative test conditions, test hints, and/or expected results for the requirements sentence 106, as discussed later. While shown as separate modules or logic, one or more of the entity extractor 4004, scenario generation module 4006, test condition logic 4008, may be combined, incorporated, or part of one module or logic, such as one analysis logic component. Other implementations are possible.
A “Test Scenario” (also referred to as a “scenario description” or a “test scenario description”) may be a short description of the test being conducted to verify a requirement. A “Test Condition” may be the particular condition which is being tested. “Test Hints” may be the ordered sequence of steps a tester would have to execute to perform the test. The corresponding output from a correctly implemented system may be an “Expected Result”. The combination of a Test Condition and the Expected Result is referred to as a TCER.
The requirements testing system 4000 may also or alternatively determine the categorization of a requirements sentence 106 and/or identify ambiguous phrases in the requirements sentence 106. In some embodiments, no restriction on the structure of the requirements sentence 106 is imposed, and the requirement testing system 4000 may work on each single requirements sentence 106 and generate one or more test conditions and associated test hints and expected results. The requirement testing system 4000 may be configured or operable to analyze a single sentence or requirement statement (or as many as desired), and need not maintain state across multiple statements or sentences within statements.
The requirement sentences are parsed using Link Grammar parser (abbreviated as LG). LG provides information on the syntax of a grammatically correct English sentence by connecting pairs of words through labeled links (
The pre-processor logic 1008 includes preprocessing rulesets (e.g., the preprocessing rulesets 1010 and 1012). The preprocessing rulesets cause the pre-processor logic 1008 to perform analysis, modification, or other actions on requirement statements. Table 1 and Table 2 give examples of the pre-processing rulesets.
In some instances, when the pre-processor logic 1008 converts the words in the sentence to lower case, the words (e.g., when they are acronyms) may not be recognized as valid entries in the parser logic dictionary. To address this situation, the system 4000 may modify the parser logic dictionary to treat all unknown words as a noun, and associate with the unknown words with the links given to recognized nouns. The system 4000 may also handle verbs used as nouns, as with the word “update” in the example “The system should disable the update button.” In one implementation, the system 4000 identifies as dual use words those words that may be used both as a verb and as a noun, updates the parser logic dictionary to indicate that the dual use words may be used as both a verb and a noun, and associates the links given to verbs and nouns with the dual use words. Words may be identified as dual use words in many ways, such as by scanning a dictionary or other grammatical database such as the WordNet™ database (wordnet.princeton.edu). Identifying dual use words in the parser logic dictionary may be advantageous in some instances, such as where a requirement statement might not otherwise be properly parsed, like where a noun may be incorrectly identified as a verb
The logic 4100 may begin with the requirements testing system 4000 obtaining a sentence or statement from a document (4101). The statement may be a requirements sentence 106 from a requirements document 104, or may be another statement, sentence, or collection of words which may be gathered from a document. The requirements sentence 106 may be a statement randomly selected from a document, may be selected in a sequential order, may be selected according to one or more algorithms, or may be selected in various other ways. Other examples are possible.
The logic 4100 applies pre-processing (4102), e.g., prior to applying the entity extractor (4104). The pre-processing may be applied (4102) by the pre-processor 1008 according to any one of the methods described throughout this disclosure.
The logic 4100 applies the entity extractor 4004 (4104) to analyze the requirements sentence 106. While the entity extractor 4004 is shown as being applied to each requirements sentence 106 individually before each requirements sentence 106 is analyzed, in some systems, the logic 4100 may apply the entity extractor 4004 to an entire requirements document 104 prior to any parsing or analysis of the requirements document 104 or requirements sentence 106 within the document. For example, the entity extractor 4004 may be used before any parsing or analysis of the requirements document 104, to ensure that link grammar parser logic 1014 correctly identifies all nouns in each requirements sentence 106 when the requirements sentence 106 is parsed. Other variations are possible.
The role of the entity extractor 4004 may be to pick up some or all Noun-Phrases in a requirements sentence 106. The entity extractor 4004 may determine which nouns should be identified in a given requirements sentence in various ways. For example, the logic 4100 may cause the requirements testing system 4000 to identify noun phrases in a requirements sentence 106 with or using link grammar parser logic 1014, as shown in (4106). The logic 4100 may also cause the requirements testing system 4000 to run the link grammar parser in a “Batch” mode on the entire requirements document 104. The entity extractor 4004 may identify or otherwise pick up Noun-Phrases from the links generated by the parser. The Noun-Phrases may include acronyms (such as “ACBG”), proper nouns (such as “Peru”), common nouns (such as “Order Processing System”) and/or phrases included in parentheses. Additionally or alternatively, if the requirements document 104 contains a “Glossary” section, such as an entity glossary 4108, the corresponding terms in the entity glossary 4108 may also be considered and used by the entity extractor 4004 in gathering nouns (4108). In some instances, the automatically identified nouns or entities gathered by the entity extractor 4004 may be presented to the user for verification (4110). In these cases, the user may have the option to either accept or modify the selected entities, and/or may add new ones. The entity extractor 4004 may, in some instances, be used to extract nouns from requirements sentences that even fail to link. Entity extractor examples may be found in Appendix A.
An example of the logic (in hardware or software) which the entity extractor 4004 may implement to identify noun-phrases is:
One reason for the inclusion of an entity extractor 4004 is to ensure that all entities are treated as “Nouns” by link grammar or link grammar parser logic 1014. For example, some requirements sentence 106 may use verbs as nouns. As an example of a requirements sentence that uses a verb as a noun, consider this requirements sentence:
In the requirements sentence (1), the word “Order,” which is normally a verb, is used as a noun in the requirements sentence. In such cases, without applying the entity extractor 4004, link grammar parser logic 1014 may interpret “Order” to be a verb and may produce a wrong set of linkages (treating Verbs as Verbs) which may lead to a wrong set of TCERs.
In the example of the requirements sentence (1), the entity extractor 4004 may automatically highlight—“Order Processing System”, “ACBG reports” and “Peru” because they are nouns. The entity extractor 4004 may also suggest entities from requirements sentences where the link grammar parser logic 1014 fails to completely link the sentence. When such words are forcibly treated as a noun, the linkage by the link grammar parser logic 1014 may succeed. As noted, in some instances, the requirements testing system 4000 may show selected entities identified by the entity extractor 4004 to the user for verification (4110), and the user may modify the selected entities.
The entity extractor 4004 may help increase the accuracy of the requirements testing system 4000. In other systems, the entity extractor 4004 may not be needed or included in the requirements testing system 4000, and the user may generate test artifacts without running the entity extractor 4004.
In some systems, once the selected entities are accepted by the user, the logic 4100 may re-run the link grammar parser logic 1014 (4112), making sure the entities are treated as nouns. The link grammar parser logic 1014 may also obtain syntactic and lexical information about the requirements sentence 106 when re-running the link grammar parser logic 1014 (4112).
Once the requirements testing system 4000 has applied the entity extractor 4004 (as in 4104) and each requirements sentence 106 has been again parsed by the link grammar parser logic 1014, as in (4106) and (4112), to obtain syntactic and lexical information, the logic 4100 may cause the requirements testing system 4000 to determine if the requirements sentence 106 is testable (4114). Upon parsing, if the requirements sentence 106 is unable to be linked by the parser, the requirements testing system 4000 may report the requirements sentence 106 as “failed to analyze” and the requirements testing system 4000 may move onto the next requirements sentence 106. The requirements testing system 4000 may quantify input requirements sentence 106 that are successfully linked by the parser as either ‘testable’ or ‘non-testable’. The requirements testing system 4000 may analyze the link grammar parser logic 1014 output of a sentence to identify a particular set of contiguous links which imply testability. In some instances, the logic 4100 may apply testability rules (T.x) to determine if the requirements sentence 106 is testable (4114). The logic 4100 may check the testability of the requirements sentence 106 as explained below or in other manners.
An example of links which the requirements testing system 4000 may identify testability is shown above in Table 3. These examples may or may not include the presence of a modal verb (denoted by links I and Ix, examples may include “should” or “will”), which may indicate what a system ‘ought’ to do or quantify an action by a system. For example, the requirement statement may be determined to be testable based on the presence of contiguous links, (e.g., S-I-O (rule ID T.1)). The linkage S-I-O denotes that a subject (link S) should connect to a modal verb (link I) which in turn should connect to an object (link O). In some configurations, the requirement statement may be determined to be testable based on the presence of a combination of 8 links, as shown in Table 3 (i.e., links S, I, Ix, P, O, OF, Pv, TP, as specified in LG nomenclature in Table 3). Other examples are possible.
This sentence is an assumption or definition and by itself does not imply testability.
A requirements sentence 106 that the requirements testing system 4000 determines is testable may be analyzed further to generate test artifacts, as discussed later. The requirements testing system 4000 may report a non-testable sentence or statement 106 may be reported and/or may proceed to the next requirement sentence.
Once the logic 4100 determines that a requirements sentence 106 is testable, the logic 4100 may break down a compound requirements sentence 106 into simple sentences or statements (4116).
A compound sentence may be one which has conjunctions joining multiple nouns, verbs or prepositions. The requirements testing system 4000 may break down these compound sentences into simple ones where each simple sentence has no conjunction.
Sentence Simplification Ruleset is shown below
As an example of sentence simplification, consider the following sentence. This example and its simplification are shown in
In the sentence (3), the compound sentence has two nouns (administrator; user—identified in this example by italics) that are joined by a conjunction “and.” The corresponding simple sentences for this compound sentence are:
The requirements testing system 4000 may record the conjunction (“and”) joining the two nouns as well. The simplification of the example is represented as Rule 1.4 in the above table and corresponds to Link Grammar Link—SJ.
The link grammar parser logic 1014 may identify a noun conjunction with “SJl” and “SJr” links (the labels “SJl” and “SJr” indicate “Subject Join Left” and “Subject Join Right” respectively). In this example, the first simple sentence (“SENTENCE-1”) is obtained by removing all words that are reachable only through the “SJr” link, and the second simple sentence (“SENTENCE-2”) is obtained by removing all words that are only reachable through “SJl”. In some instances, by breaking the sentence into two, the number agreement between the noun and the verb may be broken (i.e., Noun—“Administrator” and Verb—“are”). In these instances, the plural verbs may be converted by the requirements testing system 4000 into singular through the method of Stemming. The plural verb in the compound sentence and the corresponding singular verb in the simple sentences are underlined in sentences (3) and (4) respectively. In some instances, one or more simple sentences generated from a compound sentence may have a large portion of text that is common.
Compound sentences or statements of other structures may also or alternatively be broken by the requirements testing system 4000 into simple sentences, such as where the parsed output indicates multiple subjects—links with label “S+”. The link grammar parser logic 1014 may identify various cases of multiple subjects, sentence openers, coordinating conjunctions, dependent clauses and causal sentences. These structures correspond to the rules provided in the table above. A causal sentence has an “if-then-else” type of structure and corresponds to rule ID S.1 in the table above. As an example of a causal sentence, consider this sentence:
The corresponding simple sentences generated from the statement (5) is shown as:
The requirements testing system 4000 may save the antecedent (SENTENCE-1) and the consequent (SENTENCE-2) as properties (“if” and “then” respectively) of the two simple sentences. These properties may be used in the generation of TCERs as discussed later. The link generated or otherwise denoted by the link grammar parser logic 1014 that corresponds to causal sentences is “MVs-Cs” (Rule ID S.1).
Upon breaking up a sentence, in certain cases the simplification may lead to a clause. As an example, consider this sentence:
The simplified Clause/Sentence to this statement (7) may be:
The properties binding the simplified sentences and clauses may be recorded to be used while generating TCERs.
The requirements testing system 4000 may represent the compound sentences as a tree in memory. The order of breaking up a sentence may be useful or important when a single compound sentence has multiple attributes of “compoundness”. In some instances, the break-up of compound statements into simplified sentences or statements may follow a specific order. For example, one order of breaking up compound sentences may be: a) the coordinating conjunctions may be broken first; then b) the conjunctions may be broken next; and c) the causal attributes, sentence openers and dependent clauses may be broken last. Other orders are possible.
When a compound sentence is broken up, the compound sentence may be represented as a tree, and each leaf of the tree may either be a simple sentence or a clause.
S1={S2ØS3} or {C2ØŜ3} or {Ŝ2ØŜ3} (1)
Where,
S1, S2 . . . SkεS: A compound sentence
Ŝ1, Ŝ2 . . . εŜ: A simple sentence
C1, C2 . . . CkεC: A clause
And,
Ø={“and”, “or”, “if-then”, etc.}//the attribute value which caused the compound sentence to be broken.
Once the compound sentence has been broken down into simple sentences, the logic 4100 may analyze the simple sentences in parallel, or in various orders, through one or more of three analysis processes including a first analysis process performed at (4118), (4120), (4122) and (4124); a second analysis process performed in block (4126); and/or a third analysis process performed in block (4128).
For example, after the compound sentence has been broken down into simple sentences, the method may proceed to block 4118 where the requirements testing system 4000 may create test scenarios or scenario descriptions from the simple sentences. Creation or generation of test scenarios may be performed, for example, by scenario generation module 4006 of the memory 4002 in the requirements testing system 4000.
A test scenario (also referred to as a “scenario description” or a “test scenario description”) may be a short description of the test being conducted to verify a requirement. The scenario generation module 4006 may generate a single test scenario for each requirements sentence 106, such that there may be a one-to-one mapping between a requirements sentence 106 and a test scenario. Where the requirements testing system has simplified a given requirement sentence or other statement 106 into multiple simple sentence, the scenario creation module 4006 may generate a test scenario from or for each simple sentence. In some systems, no test scenario is and/or needs to be generated for clauses. The scenario generation module 4006 may generate the test scenarios for the simple sentences by analyzing the links generated from the output of the link grammar parser logic 1014 for the given simple sentence.
Table 14, below, provides an example set of test scenario generation rule that the scenario generation module 4006 may apply or implement to generate a test scenario of a simple sentence.
{<N−>} : Include logic of <N−> if N link is present. (‘N’ denotes “not”)
The scenario generation module 4006 may apply the rules of Table 14 to the simple sentence of a requirements sentence 106 to generate test scenarios for each of the simple sentences. After test scenarios have been generated, such as using the rules in Table 14, for each of the simplified sentences, the scenario generation module may create or obtain a test scenario of the original requirements sentence 106 (before simplification) by combining the individual test scenarios of the simple sentences.
The requirements testing system 4000 may arrange a given requirements sentence 106 that has been simplified in the form of a tree. The tree can have a single node (corresponding to a requirement sentence being simple) or have a depth of D.
An example of logic that the scenario generation module 4006 may implement to generate the test scenario, such as a test scenario for an original requirements sentence 106 from test scenarios generated for multiple simple statements of the original requirements sentence 106, is:
The generation of the Scenario Description from the simple sentences as created from the rules of Table 14 is shown as: Scenario( ). The corresponding output may be saved in a temporary object and is shown as SD( ). The operator ‘&’ joins the scenarios descriptions only if the descriptions are distinct.
The test scenarios generated by the scenario generation module 4006 using the rules in Table 14 and/or logic, an algorithm, or code may be further illustrated with one or more examples. For example, the sentence (1) above is a simple sentence (“Order Processing System should generate ACBG reports only for locations in Peru.”) which does not get broken into further sentences/clauses. Thus the input to the scenario generation module 4006 would be the entire sentence as in sentence (1). The scenario generation module 4006 would then generate a test scenario for this sentence (1) according or due to Rule S.2 of Table 14, which would be:
As another example, the compound sentence in sentence (5) (“The user can proceed to the next screen if the entered password is correct.”) is simplified into two sentences corresponding to the “if” and “then” part respectively. As shown in line 14 of the logic used by the scenario generation module 4006, the test scenario is created only for the “then” part of the compound sentence. The corresponding test scenario for this sentence (5), generated according or due to Rule S.1 of Table 14, is thus:
As another example, the compound sentence in sentence (7) (“Upon successful save, the module must update the last save time.”) has an ‘Opener’ and is simplified into a Clause and a Simple Sentence. As shown in line 14 of the logic used by the scenario generation module 4006, the test scenario is created only for the simple sentence and not for the Clause. Thus, the test scenario for sentence (7), generated according or due to Rule S.2 of Table 14, is thus:
Consider a compound sentence as shown below:
The requirements testing system 4000 may simplify the sentence (13) into two simple sentences and can be represented as a simplified compound sentence 4301 illustrated in
Where,
S1=“the user can add or delete his profile page”
Ŝ2=“the user can add his profile page”
Ŝ3=“the user can delete his profile page”
Ø1=“or”
The scenario generation module 4006 may determine or otherwise generate test scenarios for each simple sentence using the rules in Table 14, such as Rule S.2. The scenario generation module 4006 may then merge test scenarios for each simple sentence, such as described in line 21 of the logic used by the scenario generation module 4006.
(14) SCENARIO DESCRIPTION: add his profile page or delete his profile page
Various other examples of generating test scenarios using the scenario generation module 4006 are possible.
After creating the test description from the simple sentences (4118), the logic 4100 may break the simple sentences of the requirements sentence 106 into individual test intents (4120).
The Ruleset to generate Test Intents from a simple sentence is provided in the tables below.
Test intents may be the most atomic unit of a sentence that conveys enough information for a test to be made. As an example, a Parts-Of-Speech tagger has its atomic unit as a word. A test intent may be the smallest contiguous set of words (i.e., a phrase) that carries sufficient meaning. A single requirements sentence 106 or simple sentence may generate multiple test intents. These test intents, when collated into a test condition and test sequence, may correspond to the high level execution steps which a tester must perform.
The analysis logic 4018 may generate test intents for a sentence that has been simplified from or using the parsed output of link grammar parser logic 1014. A test intent may be a set of words along a path of a link starting from the Subject of the sentence and bounded by noun phrases. The Subject of the sentence may, in some instances, tend to be the start of the sentence. An example of a generation of a test intent is shown below and in
Referring to
The test intents corresponding to
The text inserted through the template is shown in italics.
Referring to statement (16), the analysis logic 1018 or another component of the requirements testing system 4000 may generate Test Intent-1 due to Rule I.1 (see, e.g., Table 5a). The S-I-O structure of Rule I.1 is shown in
Breaking a sentence into the individual components may remove structural ambiguity. As an example, consider this sentence:
The sentence (17) is ambiguous because it can imply—“the selection is via the ACC module”, or “the print is via the ACC module”. The test intents for this example are
These test intents making the meaning explicit.
The analysis logic 4018 or another component of the requirements testing system 4000 may generate test intents for all simple sentences. In some systems, the requirements testing system 4000 may not generate a specific test intent for clauses. In some of these systems, the requirements testing system 4000 may treat a clause as a test intent. The requirements testing system 4000 may represent the generation of test intents in the form of notations below:
TI(Ŝ)={i1,i2 . . . ik} (2)
TI(C)={i1} (3)
Where
i1, i2 . . . ikεi: a Test Intent
TI ( ) is the function generating Test Intents and works on simple sentences, Ŝ or Clauses, C.
TI ( ) generates a single Test Intent for a clause and does not work on compound sentences, S.
The values of the attributes that cause a break in the sentence is recorded as Ø.
After a test scenario has been created by the requirements testing system 4000 (4118), and test intents have been created (4120), the method may proceed to block 4122. In block 4122, test condition logic 4008 may group and arrange test intents into a test condition, test hints, and expected result. For example, the test condition logic 4008 may be used in block 4122 to create a positive test condition, corresponding test hints and an expected result from the test intents from (4120). The test condition logic 4008 may generate a single (positive) test condition for each requirements sentence 106 in (4122).
An example of logic that the test condition logic 4008 may implement to create the positive test condition, corresponding test sequence, and expected result (collectively referred to as “positive TCERs and Test Sequence”), is:
The requirements testing system 4000 may, for a given requirements sentence 106 that has been simplified, arrange the given requirements sentence 106 in the form of a tree after being broken down, which may have a single node (corresponding to a requirement sentence being simple) or have a depth of D. The requirements testing system 4000 may number every node of the tree and may create one or more TCER objects at each node. The requirements testing system 4000 may denote the TCER object as Objk. The TCER object may have three attributes—the Test Condition, the Test Hints and the Expected Results. These may be denoted as TC, TS and ER respectively. The operator ‘&’ may, in some instances, combine the operands only if they are distinct—i.e., the operation (a & b)=(ab) only if a≠b.
When executing the logic for generating the positive TCERs and test sequences, the requirements testing system 4000 may operate as follows. Initially, if the given requirements sentence 106 is simple and thus the tree representation has a single node, Line 4 of the positive TCERs and Test Hints logic shows the population of the Test Condition. The process of the creation of Test Condition is shown later. The Test Hints may be created using the Create_Test_Hints function (see line 5). The Create_Test_Hints function is explained later. The Expected Results may be created using the Create_Expected_Results function. (see line 6). This function is explained later in this disclosure.
The requirements testing system 4000, when executing the above logic, may generate Pre-Conditions by identifying “data” and associated “conditions” in sentences. Data may include numerals, numbers written in text (like ‘four’), Boolean conditions (like, ON, TRUE) and date & time. By conjoining data with the conditions (like ‘<=’, ‘before’), the requirements testing system 4000 may generate positive and negative conditions.
For requirements sentences 106 which are compound in nature, the simplification may result in a tree with at least 3 nodes (and at least a depth of 2). The requirements testing system 4000 may begin the analysis, then, at the level above the leaves (i.e., if depth of the tree is D, the analysis starts at level D-1 as shown in line 10). When the sentence is broken due to dependency structure (if-then), the requirements testing system 4000 may put test intents corresponding to the “if” part of the sentence into the Test Conditions (see line 16). The order in which a compound sentence is broken may ensure that the first child of the node is the ‘if’ part of the sentence and the second child is the ‘then’ part. The requirements testing system 4000 may then identify the Test Hints as the test intents of the “then” part (line 17). The requirements testing system 4000 may then identify the expected result from the complete simplified sentence. (line 18).
Certain sentences or statements may semantically imply an opposite of “if-then” even though they carry the same syntactic structure. An example of such a sentence is:
Here, the sentence (22) implies: if the user is a Guest, verify for “not editable”. This semantic understanding may be achieved by negating the action of the test intents (lines 24, 25). The Negation may work by introducing a “not” before the Verb of the sentence.
For a compound sentence that has been broken due to the conjunction “and”, the requirements testing system 4000 may identify the TCER as a combination of the test conditions and expected results of both the simple sentences. This may be similar to checking for both simple sentence 1 and simple sentence 2 together. The requirements testing system 4000 may merge the test intents (shown by the operator ‘&’). Some test intents may be an exact duplicate because of the way a compound sentence may be broken up. The duplication may arise because the simple sentences may be lexically common and the test intents are created from the common text. In such a case, the merge operation performed by the requirements testing system 4000 when executing the logic may drop one of the duplicate test intent without any loss of information. The requirements testing system 4000 may identify the Test Condition in such a case as the merging of the Test Conditions (line 31). The requirements testing system 4000 may identify the Test Hints as the merge of the Test Hints of the simplified sentences (line 33). Similarly, the expected result may be the merge of the Expected Results of the simplified sentences. (line 34).
A compound sentence with conjunction “or” may create individual TCERs, each corresponding to the simple sentence created. This may be similar to having a tester check, individually, for each of the options specified through “or”. The requirements testing system 4000 may represent the operation as in lines 39-41 of the positive TCERs and Test Hints logic.
Having created Objects of TCERs using test intents, the requirements testing system 4000 may merge the objects according to the way the sentence has been broken (based on conjunctions—“and”, “or”). The requirements testing system 4000, when executing the positive TCERs and Test Hints logic, may proceed to move from the depth above the leaves to the root (line 51). At this point, all nodes may have one or more TCER objects created. The requirements testing system 4000 may again merge the nodes according to the logic of “and” or “or”. Because of the order in which a compound sentence is broken, “if-then” type of sentences may, in some systems, always occur at the last level and not appear at the current level of analysis. Finally, the requirements testing system 4000 may display the TCER objects created at the root.
The Test Conditions generated at this point and with this logic may correspond to positive test conditions—i.e., cases which verify the positive action of/on the Subject.
The Create_Test_Condition logic is explained here. The test condition is obtained by the concatenation of the first test intent of the simplified sentence and subsequent intents provided certain conditions hold between the first and subsequent intents. The rules to create a test condition are shown in the table below. The Test Condition is obtained by merging the first intent with all secondary intents that satisfy the rules mentioned in the table below:
The Create_Test_Hints function is explained here. This function simply takes every Test Intent generated and adds the keyword ‘Verify’. These test intents with the appended keyword is then set as the Test Hints.
The Create_Expected_Results is explained here. The Expected Result is taken as the entire simplified sentence and the modal verb if present is dropped. In this case, the verb following the modal verb is changed to present tense.
Once the positive test conditions, test hints and expected results have been determined by requirements testing system 4000 in block 4122, the method may move to (4124). The test condition logic 4008 may be executed to generate negative test conditions and associated test hints and expected results (4124).
The test condition logic 4008 may make or generate negative test conditions by first looking at the Test Condition field of the TCER object created in block 4122. If the Test Condition of the TCER object is populated due to a sentence of type dependency (“if-then”, “unless”, etc.), or the presence modifiers such as ‘only’, ‘except’, then the test condition logic 4008 may create the negative test conditions, and may generate Test Hints and Expected Results which correspond to this negative test condition.
In generating negative test conditions, the requirements testing system 4000 may leverage the test condition logic 4008 to identify test data from a test data ruleset as described, Boundary Value Analysis and the negation of sentences.
The identification of test data by the requirements testing system 4000 may include picking up the absolute number, the units associated with the data and the data condition. This may be achieved by modifying the dictionary of the link grammar parser logic 1014 to annotate all data with an appropriate tag. Data may include numbers (like “1”), and textual numerals (like “one”). Rules may also be developed to pick up the condition associated with the data (i.e., “<”, “greater than”, etc.). The condition could be symbolic or in text. The requirements testing system 4000 may also pick up the units associated with the data.
The ruleset to identify test data is provided in the table below:
The test condition logic 4008 may be executed by the requirements testing system 4000 to determine if negative TCERs can be generated using Boundary Value Analysis after having picked up the data, condition and the units. The test condition logic 4008 may look to generate TCERs at the given data value (i.e., =data), TCERs below the data value (i.e., <data) and TCERs above the data value (i.e., >data). For example, if the data in the requirement sentence is “<10”, boundary value analysis may create TCERs for “=10” and “>10”.
The negation of the action specified in a sentence by the requirements testing system 4000 may also be useful or needed for the generation of TCERs. The requirements testing system 4000 may achieve the negation in a three step process. The first option is to negate any roles present in the sentence. Currently ‘admin’ and ‘administrator’ are considered roles. If such words occur, then they are negated into ‘non-admin’ and ‘non-administrator’ respectively. If no roles are present, then the presence of permissions is checked in the sentence. Permission includes words like ‘having’, ‘using’ and ‘with’. If any of these prepositions occur, the negation is achieved by inserting a ‘not’ before the preposition. If no permissions can be found in the sentence, then negation is achieved by inverting the verb associated with the subject. If there are two contiguous verbs between the subject and the object, the requirements testing system 4000 may insert a “not” between them. The requirements testing system 4000 may identify the verb by passing the given sentence (or sentence fragment) into the link grammar parser logic 1014 and checking the constituent tree output (see
By inserting a “not” between the verbs, the sentence is negated:
In cases where there is a single verb and the verb is “is”, “are”, “were”, etc., the requirements testing system 4000 may replace the verb with “is not”, “are not”, “were not”, etc. This list of verbs may be limited and not endless, and may be maintained as a semantic list. For other cases of single verbs, the requirements testing system 4000 may convert the verb to singular using stemming (a heuristic based approach which looks at the last few characters of words and replaces them to convert the word into singular). The singular verb may then be pre-pended with “does not”. See for example:
Table 15 offers example rules to negate a sentence.
The requirements testing system 4000 may generate the negative TCERs for TCERs identified as negative using Boundary Value Analysis and other non-data TCERs with Test Conditions populated from causal sentences. An example of logic that the test condition logic 4008 may implement to create the negative test condition, corresponding test sequence, and expected result (collectively referred to as “negative TCERs and Test Sequence”), is:
The test condition logic 4008 may start the generation of negative TCERs by handling a requirements sentence 106 that was initially compound and has been simplified at this stage. The TCER object may contain the Test Conditions from the Create_Test_Condition module and is shown in line 7 of the negative TCERs and Test Hints logic. The Test Hints is similarly generated from the Create_Test_Hints function. For a compound sentence of type dependency (“if-then”, etc.), the test condition logic 4008 may designate or determine the Test Conditions as in the case of the Positive TCER. Similarly, for sentences of type “until-then”, etc., the test condition logic may not negate the Test Conditions (unlike the case in the Positive TCER). The requirements testing system 4000 may identify the test hints as the entire test intents (lines 14).
The test condition logic 4008 may reverse the functioning of conjunctions ‘or’ and ‘and’ from that in the case of Positive TCERs. Here, for the case of ‘or’, the test condition logic 4008 may join test intents (lines 19-20). For the case of ‘and’ or ‘,’, the test condition logic 4008 may keep the test intents distinct (lines 25-34). Once the TCER Objects are created at the level of “Leaf-1”, the test condition logic 4008 may collate along the tree representation of the sentence. The collation may be similar to the case of the Positive TCER with the difference being that the collation for ‘or’ and ‘and’ are reversed. For example, for a conjunction ‘and’, the test condition logic 4008 may keep the TCER objects distinct and may merge the objects for the case of ‘or’. This is shown in lines 113-149.
The operation when data is present is shown from lines 48-101. The logic for the various data conditions may be implemented which will give the negative test coverage. In cases where the test intent does not contain data, the test condition logic may perform the negation of the Test Condition and the associated Test Hints and Expected Result (lines 105-109). A set of examples depicting the various aspects of this logic are provided in the Appendix A.
After the negative test conditions and associated test hints and expected result are generated (4124), the requirements testing system 4000 may publish or otherwise display the TCERs generated for the given requirements sentence 106 in a report (4130). For example, the requirements testing system 4000 may publish the TCERs generated in an excel sheet. The requirements testing system 4000 may, in some instances, largely be based on the syntax of the sentence. Semantics may be needed at specific places, such as: a) the User defined Entities (although optional), b) the semantics of sub-ordinate conjunctions (“if-then”, “unless”, etc.), c) the semantics of conjunctions (“and”, “or”) and d) the semantics of conditions associated with data (“<”, “after”, etc.). The identification of the words that need semantic interpretation may be performed by the requirements testing system 4000 using the link grammar parser logic 1014 dictionary. For example, having determined that the semantics of “before” is to be created, the requirements testing system 4000 may identify all other words similar to “before” in structure by looking at the category in link grammar parser's dictionary. The category may contain all other words including “after”, “by”, etc. Other examples are possible.
Returning to where the method illustrated in
The identification of ambiguous phrases by the requirements testing system 4000 may be driven by a semantic list of phrases and a set of Links. When the words occurring with this given set of Links is not present in the list of phrases, the requirements testing system 4000 may mark a word as ambiguous. Ambiguous phrases may often occur as adjectives or adverbs, though not all adjectives or adverbs may be ambiguous. In some systems, a set of words have been developed whose occurrence does not imply ambiguity. The ruleset for ambiguity is shown in the table below.
The requirements testing system 4000 may also or alternatively display the results of the identification of ambiguous phrases may also or alternatively in a created report in block 2130. In some instances, the requirements testing system 4000 may display results of the identification of ambiguous phrases with the results of the test scenarios, test conditions, test sequences, and expected results. In other instances, the results may be displayed separate. Other examples or variations are possible.
Returning to block 4116, along with performing the processes (4118-4126), the method may also or alternatively proceed to (4128) in parallel or at any time before, during, or after any of the processes (4118-4126). The requirements testing system 4000 may classify a requirement sentence into one or more categories (4128).
Categorization of a given requirements sentence 106 into one or more pre-defined categories by the requirements testing system 4000 may be driven through a set of Links and a glossary of terms. During certain categorizations, the requirements testing system 4000 may look at the links and the type of nouns associated with them (e.g., Person noun versus a system noun). Other categories may be decided based on the presence of terms in the glossary.
The requirements testing system 4000 or 4000 may also, as described below, leverage the categorization processing described in the document commenting, analysis, and reporting applications (“DARAs”), including U.S. Pat. Publication Nos. 2011-0022902, 2010-0005386, and 2009-0138793, which are incorporated by reference in this document in their entireties.
The Rules for Categorisation is given in the table below:
The system 4000 may employ the entity glossary and the category keyword glossary from the DARAs, or may employ customized glossaries including additional, different, or fewer glossary entries. In particular, the entity glossary may be implemented as the agent glossary in the DARAs. An example NFR dictionary, including a logging and security section is given above in Table 12.
Table 7 shows some examples of categories that the system 4000 may recognize.
For the security category, the requirements testing system 4000 or 4000 may compare the requirement statement 1006 to the indicator phrases in the DARAs NFR glossary marked as security. For error handling, the system 4000 may compare the requirement statement 1006 to the indicator phrases in the DARAs NFR glossary marked as “logging”, “disaster recovery”, “DisasterRecoveryRequirements”, “Recovery Time”, or any other phrases that indicate error handling.
As noted above, the non-functional requirement (NFR) statement specifies how a system should behave. What the behavior should be is captured in the functional requirement. The requirements testing system 4000 may compare the requirements sentence 106 to the indicator phrases in the DARAs NFR glossary, except those marked for security or error handling (as noted above).
The requirements testing system 4000 may categorize a requirement statement as involving an inter-module test as follows:
Noun→Modal Verb→{Preposition, condition}→Noun
Then, the requirements testing system 4000 may confirm that both the nouns are not actors and not persons. An example inter-module test statement 2802 is shown in
The requirements testing system 4000 may classify verbs as input/output. For example, the requirements testing system 4000 may regard “send” and “click” as outputs and “receive” as an input. The requirements testing system 4000 may then determine whether a person noun phrase occurs to the left of the verb or to the right of the verb. If the person noun phrase is to the left, the requirements testing system 4000 may categorize the requirement sentence as an “Input domain”, else as an “Output domain.” An example Input domain sentence 2804 is present in
The requirements testing system 4000 may determine that a requirement sentence is of the category Condition/Dependency, when the link grammar parser logic 1014 locates condition “C” structures in the requirement sentence. An example Condition/Dependency statement 2902 is shown in
The requirements testing system 4000 may determine that a requirement sentence is of the category Usability/Conformance, when the link grammar parser logic 1014 locates any of the keywords in the usability glossary or in the conformance glossary, respectively, in the requirement sentence. An example Usability/Conformance statement 2904 is shown in
The requirements testing system 4000 may also or alternatively display the results of the classification of the sentence into the categories in a created report in block 2130. In some instances, these results may be displayed by the requirements testing system 4000 with the results of the test scenarios, test conditions, test sequences, and expected results. In other instances, the results may be displayed separate. Other examples or variations are possible.
As noted, the requirements testing system 4000 may create a report (4130).
In some systems, the requirements testing system 4000 may operate in two basic modes—Analyze the entire document, or analyze interactively. In the interactive mode, the requirements testing system 4000 may enable receive a given sentence and output without generating any report. If the given requirement document has already been analyzed, the “Open Report” will directly open the analyzed excel report. This “Open Report” may also be present as a separate button in the Ribbon. Many other examples of displays and reports generated by a requirements testing system 4000 are possible.
In some instances, the requirements testing system 4000 may create or generate separate reports for each process or branch of the method. In other instances, the requirements testing system 4000 may create one report for all of the processes or branches. In one example, after the analysis of all the requirements sentence 106 in a requirements document 104, the requirements testing system 4000 may generate an excel report which may include the test description of a requirements sentence 106, the Test Conditions, Test Sequence and Expected Results for the requirements sentence 106, and/or the Category and Ambiguous phrases if any. The results of a single requirements sentence 106 may also be seen in some systems by running the tool in interactive mode, where an excel sheet is not created but the result is shown in the requirements document 104 itself.
The report 4700 generated by the requirements testing system 4000 in (4130) may give a summary of analysis that includes the total requirements analyzed, number of scenarios, total number of TCERs and total number of test steps generated. The logic 4100 may also or alternatively categorize requirement sentences or statements in the report 4700 generated in (4130) into different categories (for example, as defined by IEEE standards). The category information may be used to identify gaps in requirements gathering and to fine tune the estimates. For example, if security is an important consideration for the system, and the number of security requirements is either zero or very few, then the requirements gathering process may be incomplete. Similarly, if there are many non-functional requirements (NFRs), then the test estimates may need to budget for this. The report 4700 generated in (4130) may also or alternatively give the details of the analysis which includes sentences that could not be analyzed, the ambiguous words in requirement sentences, the category a requirement belongs to and/or the requirement sentences that are ‘Non-Testable’. The report 4700 may be automatically generated and/or fields in the report may be filled automatically or manually. Other examples or reports 4700 and displays are possible.
The requirements testing system 4000 may be implemented as a plug-in or add-in into Microsoft word and Excel.
The requirements testing system 4000 has been tested on approximately 1600+ functional requirements from various projects on different domains, with the results achieved shown below in Table 16.
The requirements testing system 4000 demonstrates excellent accuracy across the different domains.
The requirements testing system 4000 may be configured to operate in an “insert label” mode. In this mode, the requirements testing system 4000 may identify that a requirements document does not have labels for a requirements sentence. The requirements testing system 4000 may identify requirements for which labels are desired, and then, the requirements testing system 4000 may insert label for the sentences. In some systems, the prompting of the insertion of the label may take place after the sentence has been identified, but before the label has been applied, such as where a user may identify or otherwise highlight the sentence and select or trigger the requirements testing system 4000 to insert a label for it.
The requirements testing system 4000 may be configured or operable to handle short forms like “i.e.” and “e.g.”. The requirements testing system 4000 may ignore images, which may improve processing speeds. The requirements testing system 4000 may be configured or operable to account for and handle “track changes” in requirements document, such as “track changes” in a Microsoft Word document. For example, if the requirement document has many revisions and user has not accepted changes, the requirements testing system 4000 may identify that and prompt a user, or require a user, to accept all the changes before analyzing the document. The requirements testing system 4000 may be configured or operable to handle table of contents and table of figures. The requirements testing system 4000 may skip the table of contents and table of figures for labeling functionality and may not analyze sentences in those sections.
The requirements testing system 4000 may be used by many different users, businesses, or entities, such as Business Analysts and Test Engineers. Business Analysts may run a requirements testing system 400 to ensure that the requirements captured are testable and cover all the required test categories. Test Engineers may use a requirements testing system 4000 to generate test design artifacts and estimate the testing effort (based on the summary report generated by the requirements testing system 400). The requirements testing system 4000 may ensure completeness and reduce dependency on skilled and experienced resources during the test design phase. The requirements testing system 4000 may improve productivity and provide more fine grained information that helps in better testing effort estimation. Reports generated by the requirements testing system 4000 may help in traceability and audit. The requirements testing system 4000 may include various other advantages.
The methods, systems, and logic described above may be implemented in many different ways in many different combinations of hardware, software or both hardware and software. For example, the logic executed by the system 4000 may be circuitry in a controller, a microprocessor, or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or may be implemented with discrete logic, or a combination of other types of circuitry. The logic may be encoded or stored in a machine-readable or computer-readable medium such as a compact disc read only memory (CDROM), magnetic or optical disk, flash memory, random access memory (RAM) or read only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM) or other machine-readable medium as, for example, instructions for execution by a processor, controller, or other processing device. Similarly, the memory in the system may be volatile memory, such as Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) or Static Radom Access Memory (SRAM), or non-volatile memory such as NAND Flash or other types of non-volatile memory, or may be combinations of different types of volatile and non-volatile memory. When instructions implement the logic, the instructions may be part of a single program, separate programs, implemented in an application programming interface (API), in libraries such as Dynamic Link Libraries (DLLs), or distributed across multiple memories and processors. The system 4000 may test input sentences other than requirement sentences.
While various embodiments have been described, it will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that many more embodiments and implementations are possible. For example, a method for testing a requirement sentence may be provided. The method may include obtaining a requirement sentence and storing the requirement sentence in a memory. The method may further include submitting the requirement sentence to a grammatical parser executed by a processor to obtain parser outputs characterizing the requirement sentence. The method may further include applying a test artifact ruleset with the processor to the parser outputs to determine a test artifact applicable to the requirement sentence.
In some cases, applying the test artifact ruleset includes applying a testability ruleset with the processor to the parser outputs to determine a test artifact that indicates whether the requirement sentence is testable. Additionally or alternatively, it may be that applying the test artifact ruleset includes applying an ambiguity ruleset with the processor to the parser outputs to determine a test artifact that indicates whether the requirement sentence is ambiguous with respect to testability. Additionally or alternatively, applying the test artifact ruleset may include applying an intent ruleset with the processor to the parser outputs to determine a test artifact that indicates an intent characteristic of the requirement sentence. Additionally or alternatively, applying the test artifact ruleset may include applying a category ruleset with the processor to the parser outputs to determine a test artifact that indicates a category characteristic of the requirement sentence. Additionally or alternatively, applying the test artifact ruleset may include applying a data ruleset with the processor to the parser outputs to determine a test artifact that indicates a data characteristic of the requirement sentence. Additionally or alternatively, applying the test scenario ruleset can determine the test scenarios. Additionally or alternatively, applying the test condition and expected results logic can generate the test conditions, the expected results and the test hints. Additionally or alternatively, the method may further include executing a pre-processor on the requirement sentence prior to submitting the requirement sentence to the grammatical parser.
According to another aspect, a computer program product including computer-readable instructions may be provided. The instructions, when loaded and executed on a computer system, may cause the computer system to perform operations according to the steps (aspect and/or embodiments) discussed above.
According to yet another aspect, a requirement sentence analysis system may be provided. The system may include a processor and a memory in communication with the processor. The memory may include a requirement sentence and grammatical parser logic. The memory may further include analysis logic operable to, when executed by the processor obtain the requirement sentence and store the requirement sentence in the memory. When executed, the analysis logic may be further operable to submit the requirement sentence to the grammatical parser logic and obtain parser outputs characterizing the requirement sentence. The analysis logic may be further operable to apply a test artifact ruleset to the parser outputs to determine a test artifact applicable to the requirement sentence.
In some cases the test artifact ruleset may include a testability ruleset configured to determine, as the test artifact, whether the requirement sentence is testable. Additionally or alternatively, the test artifact ruleset may include an ambiguity ruleset configured to determine, as the test artifact, whether the requirement sentence is ambiguous with regard to testability. Additionally or alternatively, the test artifact ruleset may include an intent ruleset configured to determine, as the test artifact, an intent characteristic of the requirement sentence. Additionally or alternatively, the test artifact ruleset may include a category ruleset configured to determine, as the test artifact, a category characteristic of the requirement sentence. Additionally or alternatively, the test artifact ruleset may include a data ruleset with the processor to the parser outputs to determine a test artifact that indicates a data characteristic of the requirement sentence. Additionally or alternatively, applying the test scenario ruleset can determine the test scenarios. Additionally or alternatively, applying the test condition and expected results logic can generate the test conditions, the expected results and the test hints. Also, the analysis logic may be further operable to execute a pre-processor on the requirement sentence prior to submitting the requirement sentence to the grammatical parser.
It should be understood that various modifications to the disclosed examples and embodiments may be made. In particular, elements of one example may be combined and used in other examples to form new examples. Accordingly, the implementations are not to be restricted except in light of the attached claims and their equivalents.
1.1 Sentences which Link Grammar Parser Logic 1014 can Link
Req-1: The Resource Management System may generate the project report.
Req-2: The Resource Manager may ensure that every process does not exceed 100 MB of runtime memory.
Req-3: Project Resource management system may be required to have good response time.
Req-4: When the employee roll-off date from the project is less than 20 days, the Reporting module may send email notification to the Project Manager with roll-off information.
Req-5: When ignition is ON, the polling pattern system may give priority to the TPMS message.
1.2 Sentences which Link Grammar Cannot Link
Req-6: Build the ABC solution identified during analyze phase as a contingency option on Number Ranges.
Req-7: Test Facility may be required to be connected to UXR with AS2.
Req-8: Create a credit note from order history and delete the credit note.
Various examples depicting the automatic generation of the Test Artifacts are provided. The examples range from a simple sentence to compound ones including data. The Generated Test Intents are shown as well.
2.1 Simple Sentence
2.1.1 The ABC System May Generate the Report of Excellence
Intents:
2.1.2 The Profile Page should Display the Nickname Selected During Registration
Intents:
2.1.3 Maintaining the Session, the System Will Delete the Table
Intents:
2.1.4 The System should Print the Report Selected Via the RTPS User Having Admin Privileges
Intents:
2.1.5 The Password should Contain Alpha Numeric Characters Adhering to Policy
Intents:
2.1.6 The Password should Contain Numbers Whose Total is 8
Intents:
2.1.7 The System should Generate a Password to Authenticate the User
Intents:
2.1.8 The User should Click the PRT Button to Print the Page
Intents:
2.2 Compound Sentences
This section contains example sentences which are simplified using scenario generation module 4006 and/or the test condition logic 4008. Various cases of “compoundness” are provided as examples. The Term provided in the brackets “( )” corresponds to the Link of a link grammar parser logic 1014 for the given case.
2.2.1 Neither/Nor (SJn)
Explanation: These examples relate to the case having “Neither/Nor” in the sentence. Such a sentence should have the link SJn when passed through link grammar parser logic 1014.
2.2.1.1 Neither the Customer Nor the Guest should Delete the Profile.
Intents:
2.2.2 Conjunctions (SJ)
2.2.2.1 The Admin and User should Edit the Profile.
Intents:
2.2.2.2 The Admin or User should Edit the Profile.
Intents:
2.2.3 Conjunctions (VJ)
2.2.3.1 The Admin should be Able to Add or Delete the User
Intents:
2.2.3.2 The Front End or Data Entry User should be Able to Add and Delete the Profile
Intents:
2.2.4 Dependent Clauses (CO)
2.2.4.1 When the User has Submitted, the Application should not be Editable
Intents:
2.2.5 Dependent Clauses (Ce)
2.2.5.1 The System should Ensure that the User Holds a Valid Login Id.
Intents:
2.2.6 Dependent Clauses (Cr, Mr)
2.2.6.1 The System should Print the Report which the ACBG System has Displayed in its List
Intents:
2.2.7 Causal Clauses (Cs)
2.2.7.1 When the Edit Box is Enabled, the User Must be Able to Update the Form
Intents:
2.2.7.2 If a User is Identified as Marketing or Servicing, then the Campaign Management Hyperlink should be Displayed
Intents:
2.2.7.3 If a User is Identified as Marketing or Servicing and has a Name or Profile, then the Campaign Management Hyperlink should be Displayed
Intents:
2.2.8 Independent Clauses (CC)
2.2.8.1 The Screen should Display the User's Home Page and the User should be Allowed to Alter it
Intents:
2.3 Sentences with Data
2.3.1 Natural Number
2.3.1.1 If More than 250 Search Results are Found, the Search Must be Retried.
Intents:
2.3.1.2 When the Employee Roll-Off Date from the Project is Less than 20 Days, the Reporting Module Shall Send email Notification to the Project Manager With Roll-Off Information.
Intents:
2.3.2 Boolean
2.3.2.1 When Ignition is ON, the Polling Pattern System should Give Priority to the TPMS Message.
Intents:
2.3.3 Date & Time
2.3.3.1 If the Employee Registration Date is Before 1 Dec. 2011, then Increments Should be Given
Intents:
2.3.3.2 The System should Print the Report Selected by the Manager after 5 am
Intents:
2.4 Specific Examples of Negative Test Conditions
2.4.1 Sub-Ordinate Conjunctions
2.4.1.1 If the User is from Marketing, the System Must Enable the ‘Sales & Marketing’ Functions
Intents:
2.4.2 Sub-Ordinate Conjunctions+BVA
2.4.2.1 The Low Fuel Warning Indicator should be Illuminated when the Fuel Level has Fallen Below 15% Usable Fuel
Intents:
2.4.3 Coordinating Conjunctions
2.4.3.1 If User is an Admin or Data Owner, System should Allow the User to Update Access-Log Data
Intents:
2.4.4 Role/Permission/Action Negation
2.4.4.1 When the Admin User Creates a Table, the Delete Option Must be Displayed
Intents:
2.4.4.2 When the User with Admin Privileges Creates a Table, the Delete Option Must be Displayed
Intents:
2.4.4.3 When the User is Admin, the Delete Option Must be Displayed
Intents:
2.4.4.4 Project Resource Management System Will not Allow Employee to Login if Employee does not have Access Rights
Intents:
2.4.5 Only/Except Negation
2.4.5.1 Only the Admin should be Able to Delete the Table
Intents:
2.4.5.2 Only Owners with Appropriate Access Rights can Edit the Quote Once Placed
Intents:
2.4.5.3 The Two Byte Address Field for all Records Except for the Data Record Shall be all Zeros.
Intents:
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 122/CHE/2012 | Jan 2012 | IN | national |
| 122/CHE/2012 | Dec 2012 | IN | national |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6907546 | Haswell et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
| 7844861 | Hegarty et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 8271870 | Verma et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8843819 | Verma et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8935654 | Sengupta et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
| 9038026 | Chandra et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
| 9047414 | Matyjek | Jun 2015 | B1 |
| 20050193269 | Haswell et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050240794 | Sinha et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20060161414 | Carignano et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20080109475 | Burmester et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20090192787 | Roon | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20110239104 | Prasad et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20130097586 | Chandra et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130332812 | Houston | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140123113 | Murthy et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2012 200171 | Jan 2012 | AU |
| Entry |
|---|
| Fabbrini, F.; Fusani, M.; Gnesi, S.; Lami, G., “The linguistic approach to the natural language requirements quality: benefit of the use of an automatic tool,” Software Engineering Workshop, 2001. Proceedings. 26th Annual NASA Goddard , vol., no., pp. 97,105, 2001. |
| Boddu, R.; Guo, L.; Mukhopadhyay, S.; Cukic, Bojan, “RETNA: from requirements to testing in a natural way,” Requirements Engineering Conference, 2004. Proceedings. 12th IEEE International , vol., no., pp. 262,271, Sep. 6-11, 2004. |
| Extended European Search Report issued on May 14, 2013 in EP Appln. No. 13000150.6 (9 pgs). |
| Thummalapenta Suresh, et al., “Automating Test Automation”, IBM Research Report, Sep. 2011, XP002696059, http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/in-saurabhsinha/ata-techrep-RI11014.pdf (16 pgs). |
| Sneed, H., et al., “Testing against Natural Language Requirements”, Quality Software, 2007. QSIC '07, Seventh International Conference on, IRRR, Piscataway NJ, USA Oct. 11, 2007, XP031338267, ISBN:978-0-7695-3035-2 (8 pgs). |
| Office Action issued in corresponding Australian Appln. No. 2013200136 dated Aug. 9, 2013 (5 pgs). |
| Australian Patent Examination Report No. 3, dated Feb. 28, 2014, pp. 1-5, issued in Australian Patent Application No. 2013200136, IP Australia, Woden, ACT, Australia. |
| Australian Patent Examination Report No. 4, dated Jul. 8, 2014, pp. 1-3, issued in Australian Patent Application No. 2013200136, IP Australia, Woden, ACT, Australia. |
| Notice of Acceptance, dated Jul. 28, 2014, pp. 1-3, issued in Australian Patent Application No. 2013200136, IP Australia, Woden, ACT, Australia. |
| Office Action issued in corresponding Australian Appln. No. 2013200136 dated Mar. 6, 2013 (5 pgs). |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20130185056 A1 | Jul 2013 | US |
