SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATIC QUALITY ASSURANCE OF WORKFLOW REPORTS

• US 20090299952A1
• Filed: 05/27/2008
• Published: 12/03/2009
• Est. Priority Date: 05/27/2008
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: AppFolio Incorporated
• Original Assignee: AppFolio Incorporated
• Inventors: ZHENG, Jerry, KMIEC, Paul, SCHAUSER, Klaus, HERZBERG, James
• Application Number:
  US12/127,554
• Publication Number:
  US 20090299952A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 1/1
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/02 Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising

Abstract

Systems and methods for automatic quality assurance of reports generated by workflow software may include: instructing a first reporting utility to generate a first report according to a set of parameters, the first report based on data stored in a database; instructing a second reporting utility to generate a second report according to the set of parameters, the second report based on data stored in the database; comparing the first report to the second report; and identifying at least one difference between the first and second report. The method may also include producing appropriate output identifying the differences. The method may also include determining some differences are solely formatting differences between the reports, and ignoring or outputting those differences in a different manner.

Claims

1. A method for automatic quality assurance of reports generated by workflow software, the method comprising:

a. instructing a first reporting utility to generate a first report according to a set of parameters, the first report based on data stored in a database;

b. instructing a second reporting utility to generate a second report according to the set of parameters, the second report based on data stored in the database;

c. comparing the first report to the second report; and

d. outputting a result of the comparison.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein step (d) comprises:

identifying at least one difference between the first and second report.

3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

identifying portions of the first and second report as indicating formatting for the respective reports.

4. The method of claim 2, further comprising:

determining that the identified difference comprises a formatting discrepancy; and

ignoring the difference responsive to the determination.

5. The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting a listing of the at least one difference.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein step (b) comprises automatically instructing, in response to the instruction to the first reporting utility, a second reporting utility to generate a second report according to the set of parameters, the second report based on data stored in the database.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein step (d) comprises identifying all differences between the first and second report.

8. The method of claim 7 further comprising outputting a listing of the all the differences between the first and second report that are not identified as formatting differences.

9. Computer readable media comprising executable code for automatic quality assurance of reports generated by workflow software, the computer readable media comprising:

executable code for instructing a first reporting utility to generate a first report according to a set of parameters, the first report based on data stored in a database;

executable code for instructing a second reporting utility to generate a second report according to the set of parameters, the second report based on data stored in the database;

executable code for comparing the first report to the second report; and

executable code for outputting a result of the comparison.

10. The computer readable media of claim 9, further comprising executable code for identifying portions of the first and second report as indicating formatting for the respective reports.

11. The computer readable media of claim 10, further comprising executable code for determining that the identified difference comprises a formatting discrepancy;

and ignoring the difference responsive to the determination.

12. The computer readable media of claim 9, further comprising executable code for outputting a listing of at least one difference identified by the comparison.

13. The computer readable media of claim 9, further comprising executable code for automatically instructing, in response to the instruction to the first reporting utility, a second reporting utility to generate a second report according to the set of parameters, the second report based on data stored in the database.

14. The computer readable media of claim 9, further comprising executable code for identifying all differences between the first and second report.

15. The computer readable media of claim 14, further comprising outputting a listing of the all the differences between the first and second report that are not identified as formatting differences.