System and method for efficient creation and reconciliation of macro and micro level test plans

• US 10,185,649 B2
• Filed: 01/15/2016
• Issued: 01/22/2019
• Est. Priority Date: 09/11/2009
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Original Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Inventors: Bassin, Kathryn A., Huang, Sheng, Kagan, Steven, Li, Shao C., Li, Zhong J., Liu, He H., Skrabanek, Susan E., Tan, Hua F., Zhu, Jun
• Primary Examiner(s): Pan, Hang
• Application Number:
  US14/996,909
• Publication Number:
  US 20160132425A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,103 Days
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3608 using formal methods, e.g. model checking, abstract interpretation theorem proving G06N5/013
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3684 for test design, e.g. generating new test cases
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/70 Software maintenance or management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06375 Prediction of business process outcome or impact based on a proposed change
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/067 Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/103 Workflow collaboration or project management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/00 Commerce
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0244 Optimization

Abstract

A method includes creating a macro plan for a test project, creating a micro plan for the test project, wherein the micro plan and the macro plan are based on at least one common parameter, and reconciling the macro plan and the micro plan by identifying deviations between the macro plan and the micro plan based on the at least one common parameter.

Claims

1. A method implemented in a computer infrastructure having computer executable code tangibly embodied on a computer readable storage medium having programming instructions operable to:

create a macro plan using the computer infrastructure for a test project for design of a software product that includes estimating an effort distribution and a defect distribution of defects in the software product, and generating a cost overview of the test project based on the effort distribution and the defect distribution, wherein the estimating of the defect distribution is performed by a computing system that is included in the computer infrastructure and that leverages an input of test effort distribution and test efficiency to generate an estimate of a testing result which includes defect history and production defect numbers classified by type;

create a micro plan using the computer infrastructure for the test project, wherein the micro plan and the macro plan are based on at least one common parameter; and

reconcile the macro plan and the micro plan using the computer infrastructure by identifying deviations between the macro plan and the micro plan based on the at least one common parameter to identify and resolve defects in the software product based on the reconciling of the macro plan and micro plan,

wherein the reconciling of the macro plan and the micro plan includes comparing the macro plan and the micro plan side-by-side to show the deviations which include effort, number of test cases and estimated defects between the macro plan and the micro plan based upon a matrix showing intersections of orthogonal defect classification (ODC) triggers and activities, and

wherein comparing the macro plan and the micro plan side-by-side is performed by a model comparator in the computer infrastructure based on predetermined rules to highlight a deviation level between the macro plan and the micro plan in terms of testing effort and defect number.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the creating the macro plan further includes permitting a user to specify a constraint;

and the effort distribution and the defect distribution are estimated based on the constraint.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the constraint comprises one of total effort and maximum field defects.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the programming instructions are further operable to:

permit a user to adjust one of the effort distribution and the defect distribution; and

re-estimate the effort distribution and the defect distribution based on the adjusting.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the creating the micro plan includes:

creating a system under test (SUT) model based on test requirements;

receiving annotations of the SUT model from a user; and

estimating a test case distribution for the SUT model.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the test case distribution is based on a same set of triggers and activities as the macro plan.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein the annotations are related to aspects of use cases of the SUT model.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein the reconciling includes comparing at least one of effort, number of test cases, and estimated defects between the macro plan and the micro plan.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the at least one of effort, number of test cases, and estimated defects are defined in terms of activities and triggers.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein the reconciling includes:

presenting the deviations between the macro plan and the micro plan to a user; and

for at least one of the deviations, receiving from the user one of a confirmation of or an adjustment of at least one of the deviations, wherein the adjustment comprises at least one of;

manually changing a number of test cases in the micro plan,

annotating a use case of the micro plan, and

creating a new test case in the micro plan.

11. The method of claim 1, wherein a service provider at least one of creates, maintains, deploys and supports the computing infrastructure.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing infrastructure is provided by a service provider under a subscription and/or fee agreement and/or based on advertising content to one or more third parties.

13. The method of claim 1, wherein the ODC triggers include at least one of coverage, variation, sequence and interaction and the ODC activities include at least one of system test, system integration test, performance test and user acceptance test.

14. The method of claim 13, further comprising considering the macro plan and the micro plan reconciled when all deviations are appropriately adjusted or confirmed.

15. The method of claim 14, further comprising marking cells of the macro plan and the micro plan when the macro plan and the micro plan have been appropriately adjusted or confirmed.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein:

creating the macro plan further includes permitting a user to specify a constraint;

estimating the effort distribution and the defect distribution is based on the constraint;

creating the micro plan includes;

creating a system under test (SUT) model based on test requirements;

receiving annotations of the SUT model from a user; and

estimating a test case distribution for the SUT model; and

the reconciling includes;

presenting the deviations between the macro plan and the micro plan to a user; and

for at least one of the deviations, receiving from the user one of a confirmation of or an adjustment of at least one of the deviations, wherein the adjustment comprises at least one of;

manually changing a number of test cases in the micro plan,

annotating a use case of the micro plan, and

creating a new test case in the micro plan.

17. The method of claim 1, wherein the reconciling includes comparing at least one of effort, number of test cases, and estimated defects between the macro plan and the micro plan.

18. The method of claim 17, wherein the at least one of effort, number of test cases, and estimated defects are defined in terms of activities and triggers.

19. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing system includes at least one of an opportunity benefit analysis module, a predictive model at multiple levels, risk-based test planning, and a test process optimization engine.

20. The method of claim 19, further comprising providing an optimized test effort distribution with a base return on investment using the optimized test optimization engine.