Patent Application
20060026506
Reference is hereby made to the following co-pending and commonly assigned patent applications: U.S. application Ser. No. 10/860,226, filed Jun. 3, 2004, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING FORMS USING FORM TYPES”; U.S. application Ser. No. 10/860,225, filed Jun. 3, 2004, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MAPPING A DATA MODEL TO A USER INTERFACE MODEL”; and U.S. application Ser. No. 10/860,306, filed Jun. 3, 2004, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING USER INTERFACES BASED UPON AUTOMATION WITH FULL FLEXIBILITY”, all of which are incorporated by reference in their entirety.
The present invention relates to business software products and applications. More particularly, the present invention relates to methods and apparatus used for testing application logic independent of device specific user interfaces.
In typical business software products and applications, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) products, a large number of forms or form user interfaces are used. It is not uncommon for the number of forms which are used in conjunction with a business software application to exceed several thousand. Developing and maintaining a large number of forms has traditionally been a labor-intensive task for software developers.
As an example of a real life business application, consider Microsoft Business Solutions-Axapta®, which has close to 3,000 tables, resulting in close to 2,000 forms. Each form has to be aligned with the layout of each table from which the run-time data is bound. The forms and related form logic, such as input validation, have to be aligned whenever the table layout changes and when business logic changes.
Adding to the complexity is the increasing number of different client platform technologies. The classic Windows UI is now accompanied by the Web Browser. In the near future, personal digital assistant (PDA), cell phone, and other UI technologies will be adding to complexity.
The Internet has taught end users that they do not need a 14-day course to learn how to use an application. End users expect applications to guide them via tasks, and they expect the application to look appealing. Because more user roles are exposed to the information technology presented through business applications, there is an increasing demand that forms reflect the information each user needs and the tasks that each role has to achieve. All in all the demands on user experience are increasing.
Typically, the user experience and developer experience pull in opposite directions. Good user experience takes longer for an application developer to create and maintain. The vision of having an excellent user experience, and at the same time, supporting high developer productivity, can seem contradictory.
Applications presenting information must provide their users with as rich an experience as possible on platforms of very diverse capabilities (ranging from rich clients running on the user's desktop, to Web clients running in the user's browser, to Pocket Digital assistants, telephony based devices, and even speech interfaces).
Program development thus necessitates testing the logic of the application to ensure that it operates as expected. In particular, this may entail executing the application via the user interfaces. Mechanisms exist that run on top of the application user interface for manipulating the user interface for testing purposes. However, use of such mechanisms is not without significant problems. For instance, as the user interface may be changed during development through the movement, addition or deletion of data entry fields, buttons, etc., the testing mechanism must also be modified to accommodate the changes in the user interface. In addition as explained above, it is desirable that the application be executable on a number of different devices or platforms. Since the capabilities of the devices vary, in order to fully test the logic of the application, one may have to install the testing mechanisms on many devices, each of which must be maintained during application development, as discussed above, for changes made in the corresponding user interfaces.
There is thus an ongoing need for a testing mechanism that can address one or more of the above-described problems and/or provides other advantages over the prior art.
A method, computer readable medium and/or module are provided for testing application logic independent of specific user interface platforms or devices. As used herein, “application logic” includes user interface logic that is independent of any specific computing device and business or other logic apart from the user interface logic.
In accordance with one aspect of the invention, an application logic model is provided and is operable with data in a database. For example, the application logic model can include a table, an entity, an object, etc. A logical layer model is generated having user interface features independent of specific computing devices from data in the database applied to the application logic model. Test data is provided to and data is received from the logical layer model independent (are free from dependencies) of a user interface to test the application logic model as well as the display target independent portion of the user interface logic. Test scripts can be used to automate the process and provide test data according to a desired sequence or scenario.
In some embodiments, in another step, or as another aspect of the present invention, data provided to or present in the logical layer model can be recorded during runtime to capture a sequence of events or a problem scenario. It should be noted that a display target model is generated during run-time for execution on a specific computing device. The display target model forms a user interface suitable for entry of data or commands, but is derived from the logical layer model. The display target model includes necessary controls for generating the user interfaces given the capabilities or features of the given platform or computing device. Nevertheless, the captured data pertains to the logical layer model and can then be used to derive the test script manually or automatically in order to replicate the problem scenario with respect to the logical layer model/application logic model.
Using the test module or foregoing method, an application developer can provide data simulating entry thereof in a display target, and receive data from the logical layer model consistent with rendering on a display target. In this manner, the source of errors or problems can be ascertained with respect to the logical layer model/application logic model (which the test module is directed to) versus the display target model.
The present invention relates to a system and method for testing application logic. However, prior to discussing the present invention in greater detail, illustrative environments in which the present invention can be used will be discussed first.
The invention is operational with numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments or configurations. Examples of well known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with the invention include, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like.
The invention may be described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a computer. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Those skilled in the art can implement the description and/or figures herein as computer-executable instructions, which can be embodied on any form of computer readable media discussed below.
The invention may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote computer storage media including memory storage devices.
With reference to
Computer 110 typically includes a variety of computer readable media. Computer readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by computer 110 and includes both volatile and nonvolatile media, removable and non-removable media. By way of example, and not limitation, computer readable media may comprise computer storage media and communication media. Computer storage media includes both volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data. Computer storage media includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by computer 110. Communication media typically embodies computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data in a modulated data signal such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism and includes any information delivery media. The term “modulated data signal” means a signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encode information in the signal. By way of example, and not limitation, communication media includes wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared and other wireless media. Combinations of any of the above should also be included within the scope of computer readable media.
The system memory 130 includes computer storage media in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory such as read only memory (ROM) 131 and random access memory (RAM) 132. A basic input/output system 133 (BIOS), containing the basic routines that help to transfer information between elements within computer 110, such as during start-up, is typically stored in ROM 131. RAM 132 typically contains data and/or program modules that are immediately accessible to and/or presently being operated on by processing unit 120. By way of example, and not limitation,
The computer 110 may also include other removable/non-removable volatile/nonvolatile computer storage media. By way of example only,
The drives and their associated computer storage media discussed above and illustrated in
A user may enter commands and information into the computer 110 through input devices such as a keyboard 162, a microphone 163, and a pointing device 161, such as a mouse, trackball or touch pad. Other input devices (not shown) may include a joystick, game pad, satellite dish, scanner, or the like. These and other input devices are often connected to the processing unit 120 through a user input interface 160 that is coupled to the system bus, but may be connected by other interface and bus structures, such as a parallel port, game port or a universal serial bus (USB). The input devices are used for creating, modifying, and deleting data. Input devices can also be used for controlling (starting and stopping) the application programs and particular functions herein. The functions include opening (showing) forms and closing the forms. A monitor 191 or other type of display device is also connected to the system bus 121 via an interface, such as a video interface 190. In addition to the monitor, computers may also include other peripheral output devices such as speakers 197 and printer 196, which may be connected through an output peripheral interface 195. The monitor or other display device is used to show (render) forms.
The computer 110 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers, such as a remote computer 180. The remote computer 180 may be a personal computer, a hand-held device, a server, a router, a network PC, a peer device or other common network node, and typically includes many or all of the elements described above relative to the computer 110. The logical connections depicted in
When used in a LAN networking environment, the computer 110 is connected to the LAN 171 through a network interface or adapter 170. When used in a WAN networking environment, the computer 110 typically includes a modem 172 or other means for establishing communications over the WAN 173, such as the Internet. The modem 172, which may be internal or external, may be connected to the system bus 121 via the user input interface 160, or other appropriate mechanism. In a networked environment, program modules depicted relative to the computer 110, or portions thereof, may be stored in the remote memory storage device. By way of example, and not limitation,
Memory 204 is implemented as non-volatile electronic memory such as random access memory (RAM) with a battery back-up module (not shown) such that information stored in memory 204 is not lost when the general power to mobile device 200 is shut down. A portion of memory 204 is preferably allocated as addressable memory for program execution, while another portion of memory 204 is preferably used for storage, such as to simulate storage on a disk drive.
Memory 204 includes an operating system 212, application programs 214 as well as an object store 216. During operation, operating system 212 is preferably executed by processor 202 from memory 204. Operating system 212, in one preferred embodiment, is a WINDOWS® CE brand operating system commercially available from Microsoft Corporation. Operating system 212 is preferably designed for mobile devices, and implements database features that can be utilized by applications 214 through a set of exposed application programming interfaces and methods. The objects in object store 216 are maintained by applications 214 and operating system 212, at least partially in response to calls to the exposed application programming interfaces and methods.
Communication interface 208 represents numerous devices and technologies that allow mobile device 200 to send and receive information. The devices include wired and wireless modems, satellite receivers and broadcast tuners to name a few. Mobile device 200 can also be directly connected to a computer to exchange data therewith. In such cases, communication interface 208 can be an infrared transceiver or a serial or parallel communication connection, all of which are capable of transmitting streaming information.
Input/output components 206 include a variety of input devices such as a touch-sensitive screen, buttons, rollers, and a microphone as well as a variety of output devices including an audio generator, a vibrating device, and a display. The devices listed above are by way of example and need not all be present on mobile device 200. In addition, other input/output devices may be attached to or found with mobile device 200.
As described above, applications presenting information must provide users with as rich an experience as possible on platforms (for example display targets) of very diverse capabilities. These platforms range from rich clients running on the user's desktop, to Web clients running in the user's browser, to PDAs, to telephony based devices, and even speech interfaces. Other platforms are also possible. To understand context of the present invention a brief description of an exemplary schema that defines how data types map onto native controls on the platform in question may be helpful.
The task of presenting the user interface (UI) is handled by the mapping methods using a multi-tiered approach.
Models and Maps
Many information systems use models. Examples of models are: object diagrams, Extensible Markup Language (XML) schemas, database definitions, and form definitions. A model is formally defined as a set of objects, each of which has properties, compositions, and associations. In business UIs, the control hierarchies used to render the forms can be regarded as models, such as Windows control trees and Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) object models. Also, models can be used to define the business data, using for example Unified Modeling Language (UML) diagrams and class definitions. In an example framework used to illustrate the mapping methods, applications are modeled using business entities. Thus, the business model consists of these business objects called entities, relations between entities, and properties on the entities. See for an example of a simple model 380 the entities 381, 382, 383 and 384 shown in
When a model is transformed into another model, a map is used explicitly or sometimes implicitly. Maps describe the relationships between models. Some examples include: Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformation (XSLT) which is intended to map XML to XML; controls which are used to render an object model on a specific device surface; mappings of orders from one application to another; and Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tools which map UML to class definitions.
In current business applications, maps are mostly programmed using object-at-a-time mappings, meaning that mappings are coded as “switch” statements in code, which take a particular object as input and return another object. Thus, conventional business applications typically use imperative maps, maps written in the code of a typical programming language. By using model-at-a-time, it is submitted that productivity can be improved by an order of magnitude. Besides productivity gain, there is a mental gain in perceiving the UI generation problem as a mapping of models to other models using maps. Further, another benefit is the higher abstraction level found in the declaratively defined maps. The maps herein are explicit and declarative. The explicit nature of the maps means that the maps are external to the generation engine used to do the mapping or rendering, and that the maps are themselves models. Stated another way, the explicit nature of the maps means that they are defined separately from the controls and the forms. Conventionally, this mapping has been done implicitly inside the controls code or forms code.
The declarative nature of the maps means that the maps are not imperative (coded in a typical programming language). As used herein, the phrase “declaratively defined” means that the maps are not just defined in code as has conventionally been the case, but they are defined in a format which allows the maps to easily be changed. Examples of a declaratively defined format include, but are not restricted to, XML documents, comma-separated files, BizTalk Maps (mapping one data schema to another), and MBF Entity Maps (mapping an object model to a database schema). A wide variety of declarative mapping formats can be used, and which format is chosen is not of particular importance. It is important that the declarative map have a limited set of possibilities, therefore making it easier to provide an intuitive design tool to define the map. In contrast, an imperative map (using code) has nearly unlimited possibilities through the programming language, and therefore it is extremely difficult to create an intuitive design tool. Instead, programming skills are required to create it.
It must be noted that the maps, while declarative in nature, need not be only declarative. In instances where it is necessary to create a map that is too complex to be defined declaratively, imperative mapping aspects can be included in the otherwise declarative map. For example, complex functions can be created and included in the map. An example could be that if an Invoice Address and Shipping Address are nearly the same, then only the Invoice Address is shown on the Form. The algorithm for determining whether two addresses are nearly the same could be an implicitly defined function used in the map.
Model-Driven UI Based on Maps
Having the application model is an important feature when generating the UI for a business application. A large majority of the UI can be generated solely based on the model of the business (application) logic and maps. When an application developer has modeled a new entity, the UI is derived from this. This is illustrated diagrammatically in
Although this mapping can be achieved using traditional coding techniques, the mapping is not as straightforward if certain challenges are to be met. The challenge is that when new property types are created and used in an entity, the coded transformation might not know how to handle the new type and the transformation therefore has to be modified and re-compiled. Another challenge is handling newly developed controls that will only be of value if they are included in the transformation—again this results in re-programming the transformation. The mapping techniques herein do not utilize traditional coding techniques (i.e., they are declarative instead of imperative), and are able to meet these challenges. The platform used herein exposes a layered UI model, and uses maps to transform models from one layer to another. This is described below in greater detail.
The mapping techniques provide a way of calculating how to present business information to the user on a given platform. The mapping of models onto other models, works from a very abstract model (describing the business entities to interact with) to a concrete model (specifying exactly which device specific control should be used to render the business information).
For example, consider the block diagram 400 shown in
The mapping scheme involved in determining how to allow the user to interact with business information on the client platform involves at least three steps, as described below and as shown diagrammatically in block diagram 450 of
The logical control to use for the given type is determined using a mapping from data type in model 455 onto logical control in model 465. However, it should be noted that more than one mapping can be defined for an application—i.e. some forms can use a different mapping if appropriate. The mapping process is illustrated at 461, and utilizes a map 460 (i.e., the “datum type to logical control map”). Logical controls have several useful properties. They are completely free from dependencies to any specific display target, but hold properties that govern the behavior of device specific physical controls. The lookup of the logical control is performed taking the type hierarchy into account. If no logical control is specifically suitable for encapsulating the properties of a specific type, the search continues with a base type, until a logical control is found to handle the type.
Once a logical control has been identified from the type of data to represented, the physical control used to actually perform the rendering on the given platform must be found. These physical controls are sometimes referred to as “adapters”. This is done using another mapping, yielding the physical control from the logical control and the display target. The mapping process is illustrated at 471, and uses map 470 (i.e., the “logical control to physical control map”) to generate physical control model 475 from logical control model 465. This feature provides flexibility in that having several maps allows for using different physical controls. For instance, an application can provide both a “ListView” and a “CardView” for rendering data. For instance, a “radiobutton” control may be considered useful for a CardView, however such a control may not be considered appropriate for a ListView. For completeness, in one embodiment, when the client runs on the user's display target, the physical control will be used to create instances of the native controls used to interact with the user. This is done by a third mapping, yielding a set of native controls from the physical control. For instance, if the physical control was an address control, the physical control would map onto native controls for street, city and country. The mapping process is illustrated at 481, and uses map 480 (i.e., the “physical control to native control map”) to generate native control model (or display target specific model) 485 from physical control model 475. Again, arrows 461, 471 and 481 also represent the mapping engine(s) used to implement the mapping functions as specified by maps 460, 470 and 480. However, in another embodiment, the “adapter” object may need to know the interface of both the logical control and the native control. Nevertheless, the third map could be used by restricting the map to select native controls with identical interfaces.
The mapping described above may be augmented with other mappings to achieve the desired result. Other factors include the type of form rendered (card or list view), the user role (possibly restricting the information offered to the user). The process of arriving from the abstract model to the concrete model is purely prescriptive (by describing the mappings involved), and flexibility is afforded by being able to change these mappings.
As another example,
Next, logical control model 515 is mapped to an HTML model 525 using map 520. The mapping process is represented at 521. In this example, model 525 is a physical control model in the form of an HTML model. Thus, map 520 maps the logical controls of model 515 to HTML tags or elements in model 525. HTML model 525 is then used to render the information from model 505 in a browser. Again, the arrows used to represent mapping steps 511 and 521 also represent suitably configured mapping engines which utilize maps 510 and 520 to implement the mapping process.
Next, logical layer model 570 is mapped to display target model 580 having physical controls 581 specific to a particular display target. Model 570 is mapped to model 580 using map 575, with the process and mapping engine represented at 576. Map 575 maps the logical control types “Number” and “String” of model 570 to the physical control type “TextBox” of model 580, illustrating again that several different types from a particular model can be mapped to a single type on another model. By extension, several different property types from a business model can be mapped to the same final (for example “physical”) control.
Logical Forms—A UI Model
When mapping from the model of the business logic to the UI model, a layout independent layer, also called a logical layer, is inserted. If it is believed that the model of the business logic can be mapped to the final UI regardless of the display target, the logical layer is a straightforward abstraction. Some metadata will be common for all the display targets such as the business entity itself, and some parts will be specific for the specific display target. The logical layer is the common part.
At run-time, the models or forms are mapped to logical layer model 625. Logical layer model 625 is also generated using run-time data stored in database 615 applied to business logic 620. Also at run-time, logical layer model 625 is mapped to a display target model 630 as described previously.
The logical layer—including forms and controls—is the bridge between the business logic 620 and the display targets 630. It has limited knowledge of layout and limited knowledge of the business logic. The logical layer defines the content of a form based on the business entities, and handles common run-time issues such as data binding forms to the run-time instance of the business entities. Furthermore, the logical layer handles security common to all display targets; it provides metadata to each display target and the logical layer can handle input validation.
A business architect or developer can focus on domain-specific business logic and data. When focus is shifted to the UI, the layout details, data binding issues, plumbing code, input validation, hiding of non-readable properties, error handling, etc., is all hidden in the high level of abstraction found in the logical layer. The domain specialist can focus on the contents of the UI—what makes sense for the user to see—and does not need to have in-depth knowledge about specific display targets and their different rendering technologies.
Display Targets
The logical forms and controls are mapped to specific rendering technologies used by the display targets. As in other FIGS., this is illustrated in
The display targets control the user interaction and essentially also the interaction paradigm. A Web page and a Windows Forms window might be generated based on the same logical form, but whether they use a chatty interaction policy or a chunky post back policy is naturally determined by the display target. Each display target chooses how much of a form that is displayed to the user. A Windows form can hide information on tab pages, while a Web page can choose to show all the information at once. These decisions are made based on the logical form, which the display targets obtain. Different display targets need additional information to make such paging decisions, and similarly the logical forms and controls can be annotated with display target specific information.
As explained above, the logical layer 625 typically includes some metadata that is common for all the display targets, while other parts specific for the specific display target are reserved for implementation by each display target 630. The logical layer is the bridge between the business logic 620 and the display targets 630, but also provides a unique access point for testing the business logic 620 independent of any display target 630. As discussed in the Background section, tools have been developed to manipulate specific display targets or platforms for testing purposes; however, accurate maintenance during application development is but one problem with such tools. One aspect of the present invention is a test module 640 operable with the logical layer 625 to test operation of the business logic 620 as well as those attributes or features common to all display targets 630.
Test module 640 commonly includes test scripts 645 used to perform testing, and if desired, is operable with an optional recorder 650. To the logical layer 625, and thus the business logic 620, the test module 640 behaves like any of the display targets 630 in that it receives data from and provides data to logical layer in a manner consistent with interfaces used in communication with any of the display targets 630. Using test scripts 645, an application developer can provide data simulating entry thereof in a display target, and receive data from the logical layer 640 consistent with rendering on a display target. In this manner, the source of errors or problems can be ascertained with respect to the logical layer 625/buiness logic 620 (which the test module 640 is directed to) versus the display target 630.
Various types of scripts 645 can be generated by the application developer and used for testing. For instance, a set of core test scripts can be written and used to test features or scenarios that the application should cover. Failure of a test script from executing properly can be used to indicate that support for the feature is no longer provided. For example, suppose an application developer has developed an application using a previous software development framework and would now like to implement the application on a newer version of the framework. Proper execution of the test scripts upon the logical layer 625 for the application implemented with the newer version of the framework would indicate support continues for the core features tested by the test scripts.
In another example, the application developer can also write test scripts for the application that fits the help system (task description). Failure of the test scripts would then indicate that the task description should be updated.
In yet another example, test scripts can be run automatically and be used as a Build Verification Test (BVT) as is known in the art of application development. Again, the scripts 645 operate on the logical layer 625 rather than on the display target 630 user interfaces, which can be particularly advantageous since the scripts 645 can operate and provide and process test data faster because actual user interfaces need not be brought up and operated upon to perform the tests.
As indicated above, a recorder 650 can also be provided. Recorder 650 records data operating in the logical layer, for example, as provided to or generated by logical layer 625, which is illustrated in
The data is recorded in a manner sufficient for developing test scripts 650 manually or automatically that can replicate the data flow sequence. In this manner, problem scenarios can be captured when an actual display target 630 is not operating correctly during runtime. Thus, the source of the problem (logical layer 625/business logic 620 versus display target 630) can be deduced based on whether the data from the logical layer 625 is correct.
Although the present invention has been described with reference to particular embodiments, workers skilled in the art will recognize that changes may be made in form and detail without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
