Data unit test-based data management system

• US 10,496,529 B1
• Filed: 06/01/2018
• Issued: 12/03/2019
• Est. Priority Date: 04/18/2018
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Palantir Technologies Incorporated
• Original Assignee: Palantir Technologies Incorporated
• Inventors: Ferreira, Francisco, Gomes de Araujo, Edgar, Riarola, Jose Angel
• Primary Examiner(s): Khatri, Anil
• Application Number:
  US15/996,265
• Time in Patent Office: 550 Days
• Field of Search: 717124-129
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3672 Test management
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3688 for test execution, e.g. scheduling of test suites
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3696 Methods or tools to render software testable
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/30 Creation or generation of source code
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/436 Semantic checking

Abstract

An improved unit test framework that validates large datasets generated by a data management system is described herein. Typical unit test frameworks validate functions. However, the improved unit test framework validates the underlying data. For example, after each step of a data transformation process implemented by the data management system, the data management system can execute a data unit test that loads data sets into memory, checks a set of preconditions, and applies unit test logic to the loaded data sets. In some embodiments, the data management system executes the data unit tests asynchronously with the data transformation processes and therefore do not interfere with the data transformation processes. Rather, the data management system generates and transmits a notification when any step of the data transformation process fails a particular data unit test.

Claims

1. A method for a data unit test framework, the method comprising:

applying first data unit test instructions to a first data set generated as a first step in a data transformation process to test the first data set, wherein applying first data unit test instructions further comprises;

defining, according to the first data unit test instructions, a first variable for one or more elements of the first data set;

evaluating, according to the first data unit test instructions, that a precondition of a first value for the first variable is satisfied; and

executing a matcher on the first value;

determining, according to the matcher, that the first value fails a first condition in relation to an expected value for the first variable;

in response to determining that the first value fails the first condition, transmitting a first notification indicating that the first data set failed a first data unit test; and

applying second data unit test instructions to a second data set generated as a second step in the data transformation process to test the second data set, wherein applying second data unit test instructions further comprises;

defining, according to the second data unit test instructions, a second variable for one or more elements of the second data set; and

determining, according to the second data unit test instructions, that a plurality of second values for the second variable fails a second condition in relation to an expected threshold for the plurality of second values; and

in response to determining that the plurality of second values for the second variable fails the second condition,

transmitting a second notification indicating that the second data set failed a second data unit test,

wherein the method is performed by one or more computer hardware processors.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to determining that the plurality of the second values for the second variable fails the second condition, instructing the data transformation process to terminate.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the plurality of the second values for the second variable fails the second condition does not result in a termination of the data transformation process.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein defining a first variable for one or more elements of the first data set further comprises defining the first variable as corresponding to a first column in the first data set.

5. The method of claim 4, further comprising:

defining, according to the first data unit test instructions, a third variable as corresponding to a second column in the first data set;

determining, according to the first data unit test instructions, that a third value of the third variable satisfies a second precondition; and

determining, according to the first data unit test instructions, that the first data set is invalid in response to a determination that the first condition fails and that a comparison of the first value and the third value fails a third condition.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein applying first data unit test instructions to a first data set further comprises:

converting the first data unit test instructions into the matcher.

7. The method of claim 1, further comprising applying the first data unit test instructions to a third data set generated as a third step in the data transformation process.

8. A system comprising:

at least one processor; and

a storage device configured to store computer-executable instructions, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to at least;

define a first variable for one or more elements of a first data set generated as a first step in a data transformation process to test the first data set, wherein the first variable corresponds to a plurality of data values of the first data set;

filter the plurality of data values based on a first precondition to obtain a subset of the plurality of data values;

execute a matcher on the subset of the plurality of data values;

determine that a threshold percentage of the subset of the plurality of data values satisfy a first condition;

define a second variable for one or more elements of a second data set generated as a second step in the data transformation process to test the second data set, wherein the second variable corresponds to a second value of the second data set;

determine that the second value does not satisfy a second condition; and

in response to the determination that the second value does not satisfy the second condition,

generate and transmit a first notification indicating that the second data set failed a second data unit test.

9. The system of claim 8, further comprising:

a first data processor configured with second computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the first data processor to generate the first data set, wherein the first data processor performs the first step in the data transformation process;

a second data processor configured with third computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the second data processor to generate the second data set, wherein the second data processor performs the second step in the data transformation process; and

a third data processor, wherein the third data processor performs a third step in the data transformation process.

10. The system of claim 9, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to at least, in response to the determination that the second value does not satisfy the second condition, instruct the third data processor not to generate a third data set in the third step.

11. The system of claim 9, wherein the third data processor is configured with fourth computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the third data processor to generate the third data set after the determination that the second value does not satisfy the second condition.

12. The system of claim 8, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to at least define the first variable as corresponding to a first column in the first data set.

13. The system of claim 12, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to at least:

define a third variable that corresponds to a second column in the first data set, wherein the second column is associated with a second plurality of data values;

filter the second plurality of data values based on a second precondition to obtain a third value; and

determine that the first data set is invalid in response to a determination that a comparison of the subset of the plurality of data values and the third value fails a third condition.

14. The system of claim 8, wherein the first condition is defined by the matcher.

15. The system of claim 8, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to at least determine a validity of the first data set and a third data set using a same data unit test.

16. One or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions, which if performed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to at least:

define a first variable for one or more elements of a first data set generated as a first step in a data transformation process to test the first data set, wherein the first variable corresponds to a plurality of data values of the first data set;

filter the plurality of data values based on a first precondition to obtain a subset of the plurality of data values;

execute a matcher on the subset of the plurality of data values;

determine that a threshold percentage of the subset of the plurality of data values satisfy a first condition;

define a second variable for one or more elements of a second data set generated as a second step in the data transformation process to test the second data set, wherein the second variable corresponds to a second value of the second data set;

determine that the second value does not satisfy a second condition; and

generate and transmit a first notification indicating that the second data set failed a second data unit test.