Analyzing Test Case Failures

• US 20080222501A1
• Filed: 03/06/2007
• Published: 09/11/2008
• Est. Priority Date: 03/06/2007
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC (Microsoft Corporation)
• Original Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
• Inventors: Travison, Daniel T., Messec, John A., White, Jonathan A.
• Application Number:
  US11/682,708
• Publication Number:
  US 20080222501A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 714/819
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/366 using diagnostics G06F11/0703 takes precedence

Abstract

Apparatus and method for categorizing test failures are disclosed. In one embodiment, a data set of a current test failure is compared with the data sets of historical test failures to result in a set of correspondence values. The current test failure is categorized with respect to the historical test failures at least in part on the basis of the correspondence values.

Claims

1. A method for categorizing test failures based on data sets corresponding respectively to the test failures, the method comprising:

comparing the data set of a current test failure with data sets of historical test failures to produce failure correspondence values; and

categorizing the current test failure depending at least in part on the failure correspondence values.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the data sets indicate attribute values, the comparing comprising:

comparing respective attribute values of the data set of the current test failure with corresponding attribute values of the data set of the historical test failures.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the data sets indicate attribute values having different data types, further comprising:

accepting annotations to the attribute values, such annotations being different depending on the data types of the attribute values.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the data sets indicate attribute values having different data types, the comparing comprising:

comparing respective attribute values of the data set of the current test failure with corresponding attribute values of the data set of the historical test failures, using comparison algorithms that are different for the different data types.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the categorizing includes declaring the current test failure to be an instance of a historical test failure if at least one of the correspondence values is greater than a threshold value.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein the categorizing includes identifying multiple historical test failures that exceed a threshold value.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the categorizing includes declaring the current test failure to be a new test failure if none of the correspondence values is greater than a threshold value.

8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

associating different attribute comparison criteria with the respective historical test failures, said attribute comparison criteria being specified by an analyst after investigation of the historical test failures.

9. One or more computer-readable media containing instructions for analyzing current test failures, the instructions being executable by a computer to perform actions comprising:

comparing data sets of a current test failure with corresponding data sets of one or more known test failures;

generating failure correspondence values based on said comparing;

determining whether the current failure is an instance of one of the known failures based at least in part on the correspondence values.

10. The computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein the determining includes declaring the current test failure as an instance of a known test failure if at least one of the correspondence values is greater than a threshold value.

11. The computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein the determining includes declaring the current test failure to be a new test failure if none of the correspondence values is greater than a threshold value.

12. The computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein the data sets indicate attribute values, the comparing comprising:

comparing respective attribute values of the data set of the current test failure with corresponding attribute values of the data set of the known test failures.

13. The computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein the data sets indicate attribute values having different data types, the comparing comprising:

comparing respective attribute values of the data set of the current test failure with corresponding attribute values of the data set of the known test failures, using comparison algorithms that are different for the different data types.

14. One or more computer-readable media containing instructions for categorizing test failures based on data sets corresponding respectively to the test failures, wherein the data sets indicate attribute values, the instructions being executable by a computer to perform actions comprising:

comparing respective attribute values of the data set of a current test failure with corresponding attribute values of data sets of historical test failures to produce failure correspondence values; and

categorizing the current test failure depending at least in part on the failure correspondence values.

15. One or more computer-readable as recited in claim 14, wherein the attribute values have different data types, the actions further comprising:

accepting annotations to the attribute values, such annotations being different depending on the data types of the attribute values.

16. One or more computer-readable as recited in claim 14, wherein the attribute values have different data types, the actions further comprising:

comparing respective attribute values of the data set of the current test failure with corresponding attribute values of the data set of the historical test failures, using comparison algorithms that are different for the different data types.

17. One or more computer-readable as recited in claim 14, wherein the categorizing includes declaring the current test failure to be an instance of a historical test failure if at least one of the correspondence values is greater than a threshold value.

18. One or more computer-readable as recited in claim 14, wherein the categorizing includes identifying multiple historical test failures that exceed a threshold value.

19. One or more computer-readable as recited in claim 14, wherein the categorizing includes declaring the current test failure to be a new test failure if none of the correspondence values is greater than a threshold value.

20. One or more computer-readable as recited in claim 14, associating different attribute comparison criteria with the respective historical test failures, said attribute comparison criteria being specified by an analyst after investigation of the historical test failures.