Evaluation of Software based on Review History

• US 20090249299A1
• Filed: 03/31/2008
• Published: 10/01/2009
• Est. Priority Date: 03/31/2008
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: AirBNB Incorporated
• Original Assignee: Eitan Daniel Farchi, Orna Raz-Pelleg, Sergei Novikov
• Inventors: Farchi, Eitan Daniel, Novikov, Sergey, Raz-Pelleg, Orna
• Granted Patent: US 8,423,960 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 717/125
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3676 for coverage analysis

Abstract

A computer-implemented method for software processing includes obtaining review information pertaining to reviews that have been conducted on respective locations in software code. The review information is processed so as to assign to at least some of the locations respective priorities, which are indicative of respective likelihoods that the locations contain program faults. The at least some of the locations are presented to a user via an output device in accordance with the assigned priorities.

In another disclosed method, a given location in the software code is detected as critical based on the review information. The detected critical location is indicated to the user.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method for software processing, comprising:

obtaining review information pertaining to reviews that have been conducted on respective locations in software code;

processing the review information so as to assign to at least some of the locations respective priorities, which are indicative of respective likelihoods that the locations contain program faults; and

presenting the at least some of the locations via an output device to a user in accordance with the assigned priorities.

2. The method according to claim 1, and comprising allocating a resource for finding the program faults in the respective locations responsively to the assigned priorities, and locating the program faults at the locations using the allocated resource.

3. The method according to claim 2, wherein locating the program faults comprises testing the software code by subjecting the code to a set of test cases, and wherein allocating the resource comprises modifying the set of test cases responsively to the priorities.

4. The method according to claim 3, wherein testing the software comprises obtaining coverage information, which assesses a coverage level of one or more of the locations by the set of test cases, and wherein processing the review information comprises assigning the priorities responsively to both the review information and the coverage information.

5. The method according to claim 2, wherein locating the program faults comprises reviewing the code in at least some of the locations responsively to the priorities.

6. The method according to claim 2, wherein locating the program faults comprises defining one or more formal models of the code in at least some of the locations responsively to the priorities, and verifying the code using the formal models.

7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the review information comprises information regarding changes performed on the software code at the respective locations, and wherein processing the review information comprises assigning the priorities responsively to the information regarding the changes.

8. The method according to claim 1, wherein processing the review information comprises assigning the priorities in accordance with a criterion that is based on at least one characteristic of the review information selected from a group of characteristics consisting of:

a number of the reviews that have been conducted on the respective locations;

occurrence times of the reviews;

information regarding changes performed in the software code at the respective locations responsively to the reviews; and

occurrence times of the changes with respect to the reviews.

9. The method according to claim 1, wherein processing the review information comprises predefining a set of classes and respective class priorities, classifying each of the at least some of the locations to one of the classes based on the review information, and assigning the priorities responsively to the class priorities of the respective classes to which the at least some of the locations were classified.

10. A computer-implemented method for software processing, comprising:

obtaining review information pertaining to reviews that have been conducted on respective locations in software code;

detecting, based on the review information, that a given location in the software code is critical; and

indicating the detected critical location to a user via an output device.

11. The method according to claim 10, and comprising allocating a resource for validating the software code at the indicated critical location, and validating the software code at the critical location using the allocated resource.

12. The method according to claim 11, wherein validating the software code at the critical location comprises performing at least one action selected from a group of actions consisting of subjecting to software code to a set of test cases that covers the critical location, reviewing the software code at the critical location, and defining and verifying a formal model of the software code at the critical location.

13. The method according to claim 10, wherein the review information comprises information regarding changes performed on the software code at the respective locations, and wherein detecting the critical location comprises identifying the critical location responsively to the information regarding the changes.

14. The method according to claim 10, wherein detecting the critical location comprises identifying the critical location responsively to a criterion that is based on at least one characteristic of the review information selected from a group of characteristics consisting of:

a number of the reviews that have been conducted on the respective locations;

occurrence times of the reviews;

information regarding changes performed in the software code at the respective locations responsively to the reviews; and

occurrence times of the changes with respect to the reviews.

15. Apparatus for software processing, comprising:

a processor, which is coupled to obtain review information pertaining to reviews that have been conducted on respective locations in software code, to process the review information so as to assign to at least some of the locations respective priorities, which are indicative of respective likelihoods that the locations contain program faults; and

an output device, which is operative to present the at least some of the locations to a user in accordance with the assigned priorities.

16. The apparatus according to claim 15, and comprising a test system, which is configured to test the software code by subjecting the code to a set of test cases and to modify the set of test cases responsively to the priorities.

17. The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the test system is configured to obtain coverage information, which assesses a coverage level of one or more of the locations by the set of test cases, and wherein the processor is coupled to assign the priorities responsively to both the review information and the coverage information.

18. The apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the review information comprises information regarding changes performed on the software code at the respective locations, and wherein the processor is coupled to assign the priorities responsively to the information regarding the changes.

19. The apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the processor is coupled to assign the priorities in accordance with a criterion that is based on at least one characteristic of the review information selected from a group of characteristics consisting of:

a number of the reviews that have been conducted on the respective locations;

occurrence times of the reviews;

information regarding changes performed in the software code at the respective locations responsively to the reviews; and

occurrence times of the changes with respect to the reviews.

20. The apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the processor is coupled to predefine a set of classes and respective class priorities, to classify each of the at least some of the locations to one of the classes based on the review information, and to assign the priorities responsively to the class priorities of the respective classes to which the at least some of the locations were classified.

21. Apparatus for software processing, comprising:

a processor, which is coupled to obtain review information pertaining to reviews that have been conducted on respective locations in software code, and to detect, based on the review information, that a given location in the software code is critical; and

an output device, which is operative to indicate the detected critical location to a user.

22. The apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the review information comprises information regarding changes performed on the software code at the respective locations, and wherein the processor is coupled to identify the critical location responsively to the information regarding the changes.

23. The apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the processor is coupled to identify the critical location responsively to a criterion that is based on at least one characteristic of the review information selected from a group of characteristics consisting of:

a number of the reviews that have been conducted on the respective locations;

occurrence times of the reviews;

information regarding changes performed in the software code at the respective locations responsively to the reviews; and

occurrence times of the changes with respect to the reviews.