Detect application defects by correlating contracts in application dependencies

• US 10,083,029 B2
• Filed: 11/09/2016
• Issued: 09/25/2018
• Est. Priority Date: 11/09/2016
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Red Hat, Inc. (International Business Machines Corporation)
• Original Assignee: Red Hat, Inc. (International Business Machines Corporation)
• Inventors: Odvody, Pavel, Pokorny, Fridolin, Chaloupka, Jan
• Primary Examiner(s): APONTE, FRANCISCO JAVIER
• Application Number:
  US15/347,474
• Publication Number:
  US 20180129494A1
• Time in Patent Office: 685 Days
• Field of Search: 717121
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/71 Version control security arrangements therefor G06F21/57; Configuration management
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 9/541 via adapters, e.g. between incompatible applications

Abstract

An example method of detecting incompatibility between an application and an application dependency includes identifying a first set of contracts exposed in a first version of an application dependency. Each contract includes a symbol and a corresponding signature. The example method also includes comparing the first set of contracts to a corresponding second set of contracts exposed in a second version of the application dependency. The example method further includes determining, based on the comparing, whether the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts. If the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts, an indication that the second set of contracts is compatible with the application is provided. If the first set of contracts does not match the second set of contracts, an indication that the second set of contracts is not compatible with the application is provided.

Claims

1. A method of detecting incompatibility between an application and an application dependency, comprising:

identifying a first set of contracts exposed in a first version of an application dependency, an application being dependent on the first version, and each contract of the first set including a symbol and a corresponding signature;

performing static analysis on a second version of the application dependency to identify a corresponding second set of contracts exposed in the second version, each contract of the second set including a symbol and a corresponding signature;

comparing the first set of contracts to the corresponding second set of contracts;

determining, based on the comparing, whether the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts, wherein determining whether the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts includes;

determining that a first signature of the first set of contracts is different from a second signature of the second set of contracts, the first signature corresponding to the second signature;

determining whether the first and second signatures satisfy any substitution principles, wherein the first signature includes a first data type in a first contract of the first set of contracts, the first data type is substituted for a second data type in a second contract of the second set of contracts, and a substitution principle specifies that if the first data type is substituted for the second data type, the substitution principle is satisfied;

in response to a determination that the first and second signatures satisfy a substitution principle, determining that the first contract matches the second contract; and

in response to a determination that the first and second signatures do not satisfy any substitution principles, determining that the first contract does not match the second contract; and

in response to a determination that the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts, providing an indication that the second set of contracts is compatible with the application.

2. The method of claim 1, comprising:

in response to a determination that the first set of contracts does not match the second set of contracts, providing an indication that the second set of contracts is not compatible with the application.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first version of the application dependency is compatible with the application.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the performing static analysis further comprises:

analyzing source code of the second version of the application dependency; and

identifying the second set of contracts based on analyzing the source code of the second version of the application.

5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

analyzing source code of the application and source code of the first version of the application dependency; and

identifying the first set of contracts based on the analyzing, wherein the first set of contracts is invoked by the application.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts includes:

for one or more contracts of the first set of contracts, determining that the respective contract matches the corresponding contract of the second set of contracts if the respective contract is the same as the corresponding contract; and

in response to a determination that each contract of the first set of contracts matches the corresponding contract of the second set of contracts, determining that the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts includes:

for one or more contracts of the first set of contracts;

determining that the respective contract of the first set of contracts matches the corresponding contract of the second set of contracts if a substitution principle is satisfied; and

determining that the respective contract of the first set of contracts does not match the corresponding contract if no substitution principles are satisfied and if the respective contract is different from the corresponding contract; and

in response to a determination that a contract of the first set of contracts does not match the corresponding contract of the second set of contracts, determining that the first set of contracts does not match the second set of contracts.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein each contract of the first set of contracts is invoked by the application.

9. The method of claim 1, further including:

performing static analysis on the first version of the application dependency to identify the first second set of contracts.

10. The method of claim 1, where the first data type includes a class, the first data type is substituted for a superclass of the class in the second contract, and the substitution principle specifies that if the first data type is substituted for the superclass, the substitution principle is satisfied.

11. A system, comprising:

a non-transitory memory; and

one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising;

identifying a first set of contracts exposed in a first version of an application dependency;

performing static analysis on a second version of the application dependency, wherein an application is dependent on the first version and the second version, and each contract of the first set includes a symbol and a corresponding signature;

comparing the first set of contracts to a corresponding second set of contracts exposed in the second version of the application dependency, wherein each contract of the second set includes a symbol and a corresponding signature;

determining, based on the comparing, whether the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts, wherein determining whether the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts includes;

determining that a first signature of the first set of contracts is different from a second signature of the second set of contracts;

determining whether the first and second signatures satisfy any substitution principles, wherein the first signature includes a first data type in a first contract of the first set of contracts, the first data type is substituted for a second data type in a second contract of the second set of contracts, and a substitution principle specifies that if the first data type is substituted for the second data type, the substitution principle is satisfied;

in response to a determination that the first and second signatures satisfy a substitution principle, determining that the first contract matches the second contract; and

in response to a determination that the first and second signatures do not satisfy any substitution principles, determining that the first contract does not match the second contract, wherein the first signature corresponds to the second signature; and

in response to a determination that the first set of contracts does not match the second set of contracts, providing an indication that the second set of contracts is not compatible with the application.

12. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:

in response to a determination that the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts, providing an indication that the second set of contracts is compatible with the application.

13. The system of claim 11, wherein the first version of the application dependency is an application package or a library.

14. The system of claim 11, wherein the first version of the application dependency is an application programming interface (API) exposed by a second application.

15. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:

determining whether the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts based on the one or more comparisons and not based on a rebuild of the application.

16. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:

determining whether the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts based on the one or more comparisons and not based on an execution of the second version of the application dependency.

17. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:

writing the indication to a log.

18. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:

parsing source code of the application and source code of the first version of the application dependency to identify the first set of contracts invoked by the application.

19. The system of claim 11, where the first data type includes a class, the first data type is substituted for a superclass of the class in the second contract, and the substitution principle specifies that if the first data type is substituted for the superclass, the substitution principle is satisfied.

20. A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions that when executed by one or more processors is adapted to cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising

identifying a first set of contracts exposed in a first version of an application dependency, an application being dependent on the first version, and each contract of the first set including a symbol and a corresponding signature;

performing static analysis on a second version of the application dependency to identify a corresponding second set of contracts exposed in the second version, each contract of the second set including a symbol and a corresponding signature;

comparing the first set of contracts to the corresponding second set of contracts;

determining, based on the comparing, whether the second set of contracts is compatible with the application, wherein determining whether the first set of contracts matches the second set of contracts includes;

determining that a first signature of the first set of contracts is different from a second signature of the second set of contracts, the first signature corresponding to the second signature;

determining whether the first and second signatures satisfy any substitution principles, wherein the first signature includes a first data type in a first contract of the first set of contracts, the first data type is substituted for a second data type in a second contract of the second set of contracts, and a substitution principle specifies that if the first data type is substituted for the second data type, the substitution principle is satisfied;

in response to a determination that the first and second signatures satisfy a substitution principle, determining that the first contract matches the second contract; and

in response to a determination that the first and second signatures do not satisfy any substitution principles, determining that the first contract does not match the second contract; and

in response to a determination that the second set of contracts is not compatible with the application, providing an indication that the second set of contracts is not compatible with the application.