SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOFTWARE ARTIFACTS USING MULTIPLE EVIDENCE SOURCES

• US 20130219358A1
• Filed: 04/02/2013
• Published: 08/22/2013
• Est. Priority Date: 10/20/2006
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Original Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Inventors: Klinger, Tamir, Tarr, Peri L.
• Granted Patent: US 8,984,481 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 717/120
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3476 Data logging G06F11/14, G06F11/2205 take precedence
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3684 for test design, e.g. generating new test cases
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 30/00 Computer-aided design [CAD]
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/10 Requirements analysis; Specification techniques
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/20 Software design
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/654 using techniques specially adapted for alterable solid state memories, e.g. for EEPROM or flash memories
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/70 Software maintenance or management
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/71 Version control security arrangements therefor G06F21/57; Configuration management
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/74 Reverse engineering; Extracting design information from source code
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/75 Structural analysis for program understanding

Abstract

A method (which can be computer implemented) for inferring whether at least a first relationship exists between at least first and second entities includes the steps of applying a first assessor to obtain a first confidence level pertaining to putative existence of said at least first relationship between said at least first and second entities, applying a second assessor to obtain a second confidence level pertaining to putative existence of said at least first relationship between said at least first and second entities, and combining said first and second confidence levels to obtain an overall inference whether said at least first relationship exists between said at least first and second entities.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method of inferring whether at least a first relationship exists between at least first and second entities, said method comprising the steps of:

applying a first assessor to obtain a first confidence level pertaining to putative existence of said at least first relationship between said at least first and second entities;

applying a second assessor to obtain a second confidence level pertaining to putative existence of said at least first relationship between said at least first and second entities; and

combining said first and second confidence levels to obtain an overall inference whether said at least first relationship exists between said at least first and second entities, wherein;

said entities comprise software artifacts; and

said at least first relationship comprises a tests relationship wherein one artifact tests another artifact, or an implements relationship, wherein the one artifact implements the other artifact.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising the additional step of applying a plurality of additional assessors to obtain a plurality of additional confidence levels pertaining to putative existence of said at least first relationship between said at least first and second entities, wherein said step of combining said first and second confidence levels further comprises combining said plurality of additional confidence levels to obtain said overall inference.

3. The method of claim 1, further comprising the additional steps of:

applying a third assessor to obtain a third confidence level pertaining to putative existence of at least a second relationship between said at least first and second entities;

applying a fourth assessor to obtain a fourth confidence level pertaining to putative existence of said at least second relationship between said at least first and second entities; and

combining said third and fourth confidence levels to obtain an overall inference whether said at least second relationship exists between said at least first and second entities.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein all of said steps are performed by a software tool, said tool comprising at least (i) a list of candidate types of relationships including at least said first relationship and said second relationship, and (ii) a list of assessors for each of said candidate types of relationships, said list including at least said first and second assessors for said first relationship and said third and fourth assessors for said second relationship, further comprising the additional step of facilitating editing of both said list of candidate types of relationships and said list of assessors for each of said candidate types of relationships by a user of said tool.

5. The method of claim 1, further comprising the additional steps of:

applying said first assessor to obtain a third confidence level pertaining to putative existence of said at least first relationship between at least third and fourth entities;

applying said second assessor to obtain a fourth confidence level pertaining to putative existence of said at least first relationship between said at least third and fourth entities; and

combining said third and fourth confidence levels to obtain an overall inference whether said at least first relationship exists between said at least third and fourth entities.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein said entities further comprise at least stakeholders and tasks.

7. The method of claim 1, further comprising the additional steps of:

repeating said steps for a plurality of additional entities and relationships; and

forming a graph-like representation depicting said relationships among said entities.

8. The method of claim 7, further comprising the additional step of updating said graph-like representation to reflect changes in said relationships.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of said changes in said relationships result from changes in at least some of said entities.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein:

said at least first relationship comprises the tests relationship;

said first assessor comprises one of a create-time assessor, a name matching assessor, a control flow assessor, a user interaction assessor, and a preceding version assessor; and

said second assessor comprises another one of a create-time assessor, a name matching assessor, a control flow assessor, a user interaction assessor, and a preceding version assessor.

11. The method of claim 1, wherein:

said at least first relationship comprises the implements relationship.

12. The method of claim 1, further comprising the additional steps of:

repeating said steps in a pair-wise manner for a plurality of additional entities and relationships; and

for each of said pairs of entities;

determining which of a plurality of candidate relationships can apply to a given one of said pairs of entities; and

determining which of a plurality of candidate assessors can apply to a given one of said plurality of candidate relationships for said given one of said pairs of entities.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein said candidate relationships and said candidate assessors are obtained by performing the steps of:

facilitating registration of said plurality of candidate assessors with a central authority, said registration of said plurality of candidate assessors including data regarding which of said plurality of candidate relationships a given one of said candidate assessors is capable of assessing;

facilitating registration of said plurality of candidate relationships, said registration of said plurality of candidate relationships including data regarding which kinds of entities a given one of said candidate relationships can apply to.

14. The method of claim 13, wherein said registration of said plurality of candidate assessors further includes data regarding which kinds of entities a given one of said candidate assessors is capable of assessing.

15. The method of claim 12, wherein:

said candidate relationships and said candidate assessors are obtained by performing the steps of;

facilitating registration of said plurality of candidate assessors with a manager program, based at least in part upon input from human experts having assessor-related knowledge, said registration of said plurality of candidate assessors including at least indications of which of said plurality of candidate assessors can assess which kinds of said candidate relationships; and

facilitating registration of said plurality of candidate relationships with said manager program, based at least in part upon input from human relationship experts having relationship-related knowledge, said registration of said plurality of candidate relationships including at least indications of which of said plurality of candidate relationships can apply to given pairs of said plurality of entities; and

said determining which of said plurality of candidate relationships can apply to a given one of said pairs of entities and said determining which of said plurality of candidate assessors can apply to a given one of said plurality of candidate relationships for said given one of said pairs of entities comprises executing said manager program.

16. A computer-implemented method of building a database associated with a central authority, said database comprising at least a plurality of candidate relationships and a plurality of candidate assessors, said method comprising the steps of:

facilitating registration of said plurality of candidate assessors with said central authority, said registration of said plurality of candidate assessors including data regarding which of said plurality of candidate relationships a given one of said candidate assessors is capable of assessing; and

facilitating registration of said plurality of candidate relationships, said registration of said plurality of candidate relationships including data regarding which kinds of entities a given one of said candidate relationships can apply to, wherein;

when said data states that a given one of said candidate relationships can apply to software artifacts, the given one of said candidate relationships is a tests relationship, wherein one artifact tests another artifact, or an implements relationship, wherein the one artifact implements the other artifact.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein said registration of said plurality of candidate assessors further includes data regarding which kinds of entities a given one of said candidate assessors is capable of assessing.

18. A computer-implemented method of building a database associated with a relationship manager program, said database comprising at least a plurality of candidate relationships and a plurality of candidate assessors, said method comprising the steps of:

facilitating registration of said plurality of candidate assessors with said manager program, based at least in part upon input from human experts having assessor-related knowledge, said registration of said plurality of candidate assessors including at least indications of which of said plurality of candidate assessors can assess which kinds of said candidate relationships; and

facilitating registration of said plurality of candidate relationships with said manager program, based at least in part upon input from human relationship experts having relationship-related knowledge, said registration of said plurality of candidate relationships including at least indications of which of said plurality of candidate relationships can apply to given pairs of said plurality of entities, wherein;

when it is indicated that one of said plurality of candidate relationships can apply to a pair of software artifacts, the one of said plurality of candidate relationships is a tests relationship, wherein one artifact of the pair tests another artifact of the pair, or an implements relationship, wherein the one artifact of the pair implements the other artifact of the pair.