JP2718490B2 - Test result automatic verification processing method - Google Patents

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0001]

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates to an automatic test result verification system for verifying the execution results of two different programs to be tested in a data processing system by comparing and checking each other's test results. The present invention relates to a test result automatic verification processing method that enhances verification ability by performing comparison and collation conceptually on an item name basis having the same meaning, thereby enabling efficient verification work.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art As is well known, in a data processing system, in order to ensure its reliability, various test data are given to a data processing program to determine whether the data processing system operates as designed. Debugging tests before testing the actual version, but this takes a lot of time and effort. Therefore, various methods for automatically verifying test results have been proposed in order to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the program test.

One of the methods is to automatically collate the execution result of a program under test with the result of execution by another program on a data processing device, and verify the validity of the execution result of the program under test. The scheme is known. This method is particularly effective in revising or changing an existing program or for confirming a degree in the case of adding some functions.

However, the comparison object is one record at a time, one by one.
When the order of the fields in the record is constant, comparison and collation are easy. However, when the order does not correspond to one-to-one or when the order is not constant, the comparison and collation are not performed. There is a problem that it becomes difficult.

Therefore, as shown in "Test Result Automatic Judgment Method" disclosed in Japanese Patent Publication No. 2-52293, a record for storing the execution result of a program under test has a hierarchical structure. In some cases, comparison and collation in the case where execution results do not correspond one-to-one or the order is not constant are facilitated.

[0006]

However, in the prior art disclosed in the above publication, the comparison of the execution results is performed on a record basis or on a physical address basis within the record. , to be compared feel
When a record is specified, the location and size of the field in the record must be specified, and there is a problem that the specification of a comparison target is complicated and erroneous. Further, there is a problem that it is not easy to change the comparison target for the same reason.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION An object of the present invention is to provide a test result automatic verification process capable of easily designating or changing a field in a record storing an execution result of a program to be tested and efficiently performing a verification operation. Is to provide a way .

[0008]

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The present invention, each record storing the execution results of a plurality of different test target program - Sets the item name with a conceptual meaning a map file in the field in de, each In the field comparison and comparison, the above object was achieved by designating the field to be compared with the item name using a control statement .

[0009]

According to the above means, a map file is stored for each field of the execution result of a plurality of different programs to be tested.
, Item names having a conceptual meaning are set, and when performing comparison and collation, the item names are specified by control statements without being caught by the format such as the size of each field. Can be compared. In addition, when the comparison target is changed, only the item name of the comparison target needs to be changed.

[0010]

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS Hereinafter, the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the illustrated embodiments.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram of one embodiment of the present invention, FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a control statement used in the embodiment of FIG. 1, and FIG. 3 is an example of a table content designating a range regarded as coincident. FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing a display example of the content that has become inconsistent in the comparison result list.

In the figure, 1 is a program under test A, 2 is a program under test B, 3 is an execution result file A storing the execution result of the program A under test, and 4 is an execution result storing the execution result of the program B under test. Result file B, 5
Is a comparison / collation unit, 6 and 7 are record buffers, 8 is a comparison result display unit, 9 is a comparison result list, 10 is a control statement,
1 is a control statement analysis unit, 12 is a comparison target table creation unit, 13 is a comparison target table, and 14 is a comparison target item.
Name table creation unit, 15 is a comparison item name table, 1
6 is a name map file, 17 is a match table, and 18 is an automatic selection unit for the same item name.

In the case of this embodiment, the program under test A1
When the contents of the execution result file A3 and the execution result file B4 of the program under test B2 are compared with each other to verify the test result , the fields in each record of the execution result file A3 and the execution result file B4 are set to the application case.
An item name having a conceptual meaning is assigned by a name map file 16 created in advance by an application program or manual input. As shown in FIG. 2, the record of each item name has fields for storing the location, size, and data attribute from the beginning of the record. The data attribute C shown in the example is a zone format,
P represents a pack format, and B represents a binary format numerical value storage format.

The collation between the execution result file A3 and the execution result file B4 is performed for each item name conceptually having the same meaning, and the item name is specified by the control statement 10.

The control statements 10 include, for example, control statements 10-1 to 10-6 as shown in FIG.

The control statement 10-1 is FID (= Fi)
le ID) statement, which specifies the map name in the name map file 16 of the execution result file to be compared. For example, the map 16-1 of the map name A of the execution result file A3 in the illustrated example is a file indicated by each item name having a conceptual meaning of the execution result file A3.
Location, size and data on the field record
Data attributes. Similarly, execution result file B4
The map 16-2 of the map name B is the execution result file B.
4 stores the location, size, and data attribute of the field indicated by each item name having a conceptual meaning, and maps 16-1 and 16 of these fields . −
2, the map names A and B are specified by the control statement 10-1.

Next, the control statement 10-2 is TTL (Tit
le) a sentence, which specifies the contents of the title to be displayed in the comparison result list 9. As shown in FIG. 4, the title specified by the control sentence 10-2 is printed as it is.

The control statement 10-3 is CKY (Compare).
Key) statement, which specifies an item name for determining a record to be matched when comparing the execution result file A3 with the execution result file B4. The position on the map is determined by referring to the name map file 16 with the item name designated as, and matching is performed with the contents of the record at that position. For example, in the example of the control statement 10-3, a record matching the contents of the item name “name” of the execution result file A3 and the item name “name” of the execution result file B4 is used.
To determine the code .

The control statements 10-4 and 10-5 are based on ITM (It
em) statement, which indicates an item name to be compared and collated when the execution result file A3 and the execution result file B4 are compared and collated. The name map file 16 is designated by the item name specified by the control statement 10-4. Is referred to to determine a position on the map, and comparison and collation are performed based on the contents of the field at that position. For example, in the example of the control statement 10-4, the item name “age” of the execution result file A3 and the execution result file B4
Indicates that the contents of the item name “to” are compared and collated. In response to this instruction, the comparison and collation unit 5 refers to the map 16-1 of the map name A and the map 16-2 of the map name B in the name map file 16, and executes the execution result file A
The location, size, and data attribute of the above item name “age” and the location, size, and data attribute of the item name “toshi” on the execution result file B are acquired, and the respective map positions are obtained. Compare and match field contents.

The control statement 10-6 is an END statement and indicates the end of the control statement 10.

The control statement 10-10 is a DGR (Degraded)
eCheck) statement, which instructs automatic comparison and collation of fields having the same item name. When this is instructed, the same item name automatic selection unit 18 compares the map of the map name A and the map of the map name C in the name map file 16 of the execution result file specified by the FID statement of the control statement 10-7, and IT to automatically select the item that is the name as the target for comparison and to indicate the target for comparison and comparison
Automatically create M sentences for the same item name. For example, in the example of the control statement 10-10, the map names A and C in the name map file 16 are compared by the DGR statement, and the same item names “name” and “age” are automatically selected as the comparison and comparison target. Then, the ITM sentences 18-1 and 18-2 are automatically created.
As a result, items having the same item name are automatically selected, and comparison and collation of all the selected item names can be performed on an item name basis.

If the attributes are different when performing comparison and collation, it is needless to say that they are matched and then collated.

The control statement 10 having such a configuration is analyzed by the control statement analysis unit 11. Then, the comparison key information “name” and “name” specified by the control statement 10-3 therein
Is passed to the comparison object table creation unit 12. Therefore, the comparison target table creation unit 12 compares the execution result file A3 and the execution result file B4 with a comparison target table 13 of "name" and "name" in order to match the execution result file A3 and the execution result file B4. Create Control statement 10-
The information on the comparison target item names having the same conceptual meaning as specified in 4, 10-5 is stored in the comparison target item name table creation unit 1.
Passed to 4. Therefore, the comparison target item name table creation unit 14 executes the execution result file A3 and the execution result file B4.
A comparison target item name table 15 storing information consisting of item names “age” and “toshi” and “height” and “height” to be compared and collated is created.

The comparison and collation unit 5 executes the execution result file A3
And the execution result file B4 in the record buffer A, respectively.
Load the Dobaffa B7, compared key - - 6 and record tape - Comparative stored in table 13 key - performs matching content according to the information, if the same content, the compared record - compared as a de target The contents of each field are compared and collated in accordance with the item name table 15, and if there is any inconsistency, the result is output to the comparison result display section 8 as a comparison / comparison result inconsistency. If they all match, the result is output to the comparison result display unit 8 as the comparison / matching result match. If the contents are not the same in the matching, it is output to the comparison result display unit 8 as a comparison / matching result mismatch.

In the comparison result display section 8, a comparison result having a mismatch based on the result of the comparison / collation section 5 is displayed in a comparison result list 9.
To a system output file such as a printer.

At this time, by referring to the comparison target table 13 and the comparison target item name table 15, the mismatched portion is displayed in the unit of an item name having a conceptual meaning. It is easy to see if there is a mismatch.

For example, in the example of the control statement 10-3, the item name “name” of the execution result file A3 and the execution result file B
Instructing to perform matching based on the content of item name “name” of No. 4. At this time, the comparison and collation unit 5 refers to the map 16-1 of the map name A and the map 16-2 of the map name B in the name map file 16, and locates the item name "name" on the execution result file A. , Size, data attribute, the location, size, and data attribute of the item name “name” on the execution result file B are obtained, and matching is performed with the contents of each map position. As a result, if the two contents are the same, the comparison target item name “age” and “to” and “height” and “height” of the same concept stored in the comparison target item name table 15 are next stored. to Thus, each full
The contents of the field are compared and collated, and if there is any inconsistency, the result is output to the comparison result display unit 8 as a comparison / comparison result mismatch.

[0028] In comparison list 9 shown in FIG. 4, the fields become discrepant comparison unit, control statements 10
In specified comparer key - item names and off in comparison items. Unit
Displays the contents of the field . Figure 2 shows the title
Of the TTL sentence of the control sentence 10-2. The content of the comparison key is C in control statement 10-3 in FIG.
The field contents of the item name specified by the KY statement are displayed.

FIG. 2 shows FILE1 and FILE2.
The item names designated by the ITM sentences of the control statements 10-4 and 10-5 and the contents of the records are displayed as item names 1 and 2 in two rows. At this time, only the mismatched part is displayed in the lower part. Item names whose contents are all the same are not displayed.

The match table 17 shown in FIG. 3 designates a range in which the field contents of each item name are regarded as coincident at the time of comparison and collation in the comparison / comparison section 5, and a plurality of groups regarded as coincident are provided. It can be specified.
For example, in the entry 17-1, X'00 'and X'4
0 'is regarded as the same, and it is specified not to be inconsistent. In the 17-2 entry, X'0000 'and X'A1
A1 'and X'2020' are regarded as the same, and it is specified that they do not match.

As a result, it is possible to narrow the range in which the comparison and collation results indicate a mismatch, and prevent unnecessary mismatch results from being output.

As described above, according to this embodiment, the field in each record of the execution results of a plurality of different programs under test is conceptually defined by the name map file 16. since setting the Do means with the item name, when comparing collation can not be bound in the form of the size of each field, comparison and verification by a simple operation of designating the control statement 10 the item name can do.
In addition, when the comparison target is changed, only the item name of the comparison target needs to be changed.

Further, since the same item name automatic selection section 18 is provided, comparison and collation of fields having the same item name can be performed very easily.

Furthermore, at the time of comparison and collation, the range in which the field contents are considered to be coincident can be specified by the coincidence table 17, so that an unnecessary mismatch result is not output and effective verification can be performed. it can.

Further, when the mismatch result is output, since the mismatch content is output in units of conceptual item names, it is very easy to know what kind of concept item the mismatch content is. It is possible to efficiently pursue a defective portion of the program under test.

[0036]

As described above, according to the present invention, an item having a conceptual meaning by a map file for a field in each record of execution results of a plurality of different programs to be tested. Since the name is set and the comparison is performed for each item name specified in the control statement, the simple operation of simply specifying the item name without being bound by the format of each field of the execution result etc. This allows comparison and comparison of the execution results of the program under test, and when changing the comparison target, it is only necessary to change the item name of the comparison target, improving operability and improving verification ability. Effects such as improvement can be obtained.

[Brief description of the drawings]

FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram showing one embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram showing a configuration example of a control statement used in the embodiment of FIG.

FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the contents of a table for specifying a range in which the contents of item names are regarded as coincident;

FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing a display example of mismatched contents in a comparison result list.

[Explanation of symbols]

1 ... tested program A, 2 ... tested program B, 3 ... executed program A execution result file A,
4 ... Execution result file B of the program under test B, 5 ...
Comparison and collation unit, 6, 7: record buffer, 8: comparison result display unit, 9: comparison result list, 10: control statement, 11: control statement analysis unit, 12: comparison target table creation unit, 13
... Comparison target table, 14... Comparison target item name table creation unit, 15... Comparison target item name table, 16... Name map file, 17... Matching table, 18. Same item name automatic selection section.

Claims (4)

(57) [Claims] An automatic test result verification method for automatically verifying test results by collating execution results of a plurality of different test programs with each other, wherein each execution result of a plurality of different test programs is stored. The position of each field in the record
And information indicating the size and the content in the field
Category names that are conceptually significant
It contains a map file that has been
When comparing program execution results,
Item name set in the control statement that specifies the elephant field
The position and size of the field with the same concept as the item name
Information from the map file, and the acquired information
Information of the field to be compared
An automatic test result verification method characterized by comparing and comparing . Wherein the means for retrieving a field with the item name of the same is provided, the field the search results of the search means
2. The test result automatic verification processing method according to claim 1, wherein the comparison and collation are performed by an item name unit. 3. The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising means for designating a range in which the contents of each field are considered to be coincident, and performing comparison and collation on an item name basis according to the coincidence criteria designated by this means. Test result automatic verification processing method. 4. The test result automatic verification method according to claim 1, wherein, among the comparison and collation results, unmatched contents are output together with item names in item units having a conceptual meaning.