SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EFFICIENT CREATION AND RECONCILIATION OF MACRO AND MICRO LEVEL TEST PLANS

• US 20110066486A1
• Filed: 09/11/2009
• Published: 03/17/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 09/11/2009
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Original Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Inventors: Tan, Hua F., Kagan, Steven, Zhu, Jun, Skrabanek, Susan E., Li, Zhong J., Huang, Sheng, Bassin, Kathryn A., Liu, He H., Li, Shao C.
• Granted Patent: US 8,539,438 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/14.43
• 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 for a test project;

create a micro plan 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 by identifying deviations between the macro plan and the micro plan based on the at least one common parameter.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one common parameter includes orthogonal defect classification (ODC) triggers and activities.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the creating the macro plan includes estimating an effort distribution over a set of triggers and a set of activities.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the creating the macro plan further includes estimating a defect distribution over the set of triggers and the set of activities.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the creating the macro plan further includes generating a cost overview of the test project based on the effort distribution and the defect distribution.

6. The method of claim 4, wherein the creating the macro plan further includes generating a schedule of the test project based on the effort distribution and the defect distribution.

7. The method of claim 4, 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.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein the constraint comprises one of total effort and maximum field defects.

9. The method of claim 4, 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.

10. 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.

11. The method of claim 10, wherein the test case distribution is based on a same set of triggers and activities as the macro plan.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein the annotations are related to aspects of use cases of the SUT model.

13. 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.

14. The method of claim 13, wherein the at least one of effort, number of test cases, and estimated defects are defined in terms of activities and triggers.

15. 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 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.

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

17. 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.

18. A system comprising a test planning optimization workbench including a macro planning tool operable to create a macro plan for a test project, a micro planning tool operable to create a micro plan for the test project, and a reconciliation manager operable to identify and reconcile deviations between the macro plan and the micro plan.

19. The system of claim 18, wherein:

the macro planning tool estimates an effort distribution over a set of triggers and activities;

the macro planning tool estimates a defect distribution over the set of triggers and the set of activities; and

the micro planning tool estimates a test case distribution over the set of triggers and the set of activities.

20. A computer program product comprising a computer usable storage medium having readable program code embodied in the storage medium, the computer program product includes at least one component operable to:

create a macro plan for a test project based on a set of triggers and activities;

create a micro plan for the test project based on the set of triggers and activities; and

reconcile the macro plan and the micro plan by identifying deviations between the macro plan and the micro plan based on the set of triggers and activities.

21. The computer program product of claim 21, wherein:

the creating the macro plan includes estimating an effort distribution over the set of triggers and activities;

the creating the macro plan includes estimating a defect distribution over the set of triggers and activities; and

the creating the micro plan comprises estimating a test case distribution over the set of triggers and activities.

22. A computer system for providing a comprehensive plan for a test program, the system comprising:

a processor, a computer readable memory, and a computer readable storage media;

first program instructions to generate a macro plan;

second program instructions to generate a micro plan; and

third program instructions to reconcile the macro plan and the micro plan,

wherein the first, second, and third program instructions are stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by the processor via the computer readable memory.

23. The computer system of claim 22, wherein the first program instructions generate the macro plan based on activities and triggers.

24. The computer system of claim 23, wherein the second program instructions generate the micro plan based on:

the activities and triggers, and some information from the macro plan.

25. The computer system of claim 24, wherein the reconciling the macro plan and the micro plan includes:

comparing parameters arranged according to the activities and triggers;

identifying and presenting at least one deviation to a user; and

receiving a confirmation or adjustment from the user for each of the at least one deviation.