CN113377642A - Software quality evaluation method based on product line development - Google Patents
Software quality evaluation method based on product line development Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN113377642A CN113377642A CN202110719381.9A CN202110719381A CN113377642A CN 113377642 A CN113377642 A CN 113377642A CN 202110719381 A CN202110719381 A CN 202110719381A CN 113377642 A CN113377642 A CN 113377642A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- software
- quality
- frame
- factor
- product
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Granted
Links
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 34
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 30
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 43
- 238000013441 quality evaluation Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 33
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 claims description 33
- 230000007547 defect Effects 0.000 claims description 18
- 230000010354 integration Effects 0.000 claims description 8
- 238000001303 quality assessment method Methods 0.000 claims description 8
- 238000010276 construction Methods 0.000 claims description 4
- 238000007781 pre-processing Methods 0.000 claims description 3
- 238000011158 quantitative evaluation Methods 0.000 abstract description 3
- 238000005259 measurement Methods 0.000 description 6
- 239000003292 glue Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000007726 management method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000004806 packaging method and process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000013558 reference substance Substances 0.000 description 1
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F11/00—Error detection; Error correction; Monitoring
- G06F11/30—Monitoring
- G06F11/34—Recording or statistical evaluation of computer activity, e.g. of down time, of input/output operation ; Recording or statistical evaluation of user activity, e.g. usability assessment
- G06F11/3409—Recording or statistical evaluation of computer activity, e.g. of down time, of input/output operation ; Recording or statistical evaluation of user activity, e.g. usability assessment for performance assessment
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F11/00—Error detection; Error correction; Monitoring
- G06F11/36—Preventing errors by testing or debugging software
- G06F11/3668—Software testing
- G06F11/3672—Test management
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Computer Hardware Design (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Stored Programmes (AREA)
Abstract
The invention discloses a software quality evaluation method based on product line development, which is implemented according to the following steps: step 1, determining quality evaluation factors of each stage in a development process; step 2, determining quality evaluation factor pretreatment; step 3, determining the weight of each decision quality evaluation factor; and 4, calculating a comprehensive evaluation value of the software quality. According to the software quality evaluation method based on product line development, the quality evaluation factors of all development stages can be calculated for the software products based on product line development, and all quality evaluation factor weights are distributed according to software characteristics to complete software comprehensive quality quantitative evaluation.
Description
Technical Field
The invention belongs to the technical field of software quality evaluation methods, and relates to a software quality evaluation method based on product line development.
Background
Software metrics are processes that quantify software development projects, processes, and their products for the purpose of understanding, predicting, evaluating, controlling, and improving them. The accurate and effective measurement and evaluation of the quality of the software are of great significance to users and developers of the software. Without proper criteria to judge and evaluate the process and the stage quality of the software, proper decisions cannot be made, not to mention effective management. The software quality metric is throughout the entire process of software engineering and after software delivery. The software products are developed according to a specific process, high-quality products are obtained only through all stages of a software life cycle, different measurement items are determined aiming at the software products at different stages by considering the problem of the software life cycle, and the method in the prior art is not available for a long time.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention aims to provide a software quality evaluation method based on product line development, which can calculate quality evaluation factors of all development stages aiming at software products developed based on the product line and distribute weights of all quality evaluation factors according to software characteristics to finish the quantitative evaluation of software comprehensive quality.
The technical scheme adopted by the invention is that a software quality evaluation method based on product line development is implemented according to the following steps:
step 1, determining quality evaluation factors of each stage in a development process;
step 2, determining quality evaluation factor pretreatment;
step 3, determining the weight of each decision quality evaluation factor;
and 4, calculating a comprehensive evaluation value of the software quality.
The present invention is also characterized in that,
in the step 1, each stage of the development process is specifically four stages, namely a stage of determining a product line architecture, a stage of retrieving, selecting and constructing a frame component, a stage of realizing a frame and a stage of applying a product.
The method for determining the quality evaluation factor at the product line architecture stage in the step 1 specifically comprises the following steps:
firstly, comparing the requirements of the new system with the field requirements to determine whether the field has an existing product architecture which can be directly reused;
if the existing product architecture exists, the quality evaluation factor is: new frame N of support expanding function that needs to be creatednafForm of the whole frame N with support and expansion functionsafRatio P ofnaf，
Pnaf＝Nnaf/Naf；
And, need to createNew frame N for supporting expansion functionnafForm of the whole frame N with support and expansion functionsafRatio P ofnafAnd a new frame N for supporting and expanding functions to be creatednafOccupies all frames N required for forming a new frameworkfRatio P ofnfThe product of the two is: pnaf×Pnf；
If there is no existing product structure, the quality evaluation factor is: new frame N of support expanding function that needs to be creatednafOccupies all frames N required for forming a new frameworkfRatio P ofnf，Pnf＝Nnaf/Nf。
In the step 1, the quality evaluation factors in the frame member retrieval, selection and construction stages are as follows:
the product of the proportion of the component obtained from the general component library and the proportion of the component required to be newly developed is: pc＝Pgc×(1-Psc-Pgc)
Wherein, Psc＝Nsc/Nc，Pgc＝Ngc/Nc，NcIs a member in the frame, NscTo obtain components from a dedicated component library, PscIs a member N in the framecObtaining component N from a dedicated component libraryscIn a ratio of NgcFor obtaining components, P, from a common component librarygcIs a member N in the framecObtaining component N from a common component librarygcThe ratio of (a) to (b).
The quality evaluation factor of the frame implementation stage in step 1 includes:
code development amount LnfWith the mean code line L of the members making up the frameworkacRatio P ofgfI.e. is Pgf＝Lnf/Lac；
The one-pass rate of the frame test is Psf＝Nsf/NfIn which N issfFor one pass through the number of frames, NfIs the total number of frames;
frame integration test quality to efficiency ratio PtfNamely: ptf＝Cpf/CnfWherein, CnfIs a frameCode defect density of integration test, CpfCode defect density at the time of frame package test;
product testing quality to efficiency ratio PtaNamely: pta＝Cpa/CnaIn which C isnaCode defect density for product testing, CpaCode defect density C for testing similar mature products or on-line testing of architecturepa。
The quality evaluation factor of the product in the application stage in the step 1 comprises:
reliability QrThe probability that the software runs without faults in a specified time period is defined as follows:
that is, within the time interval Δ t, S is the total service request provided by the software product, and F represents an incomplete service request;
availability QaMean normal operating ratio;
wherein MTTR is the mean repair time, MTBF is the mean time between failures,
n is the number of failures occurring when service is requested within Δ T, Tf(n)Is the time of the nth failure, Tr(n)Is the time when the nth failure is recovered to normal, Tr(n-1)The moment when the (n-1) th failure is recovered to be normal;
execution time real demand ratio PQt，PQt＝Qt/Qmaxt，
Wherein Q istTo execute time, is the average elapsed time to complete a service task,
Tq(m)is the time at which the software completes the service request, Ta(m)Is the service request arrival time, m is the number of requests to the software within a time interval Δ t in seconds;
Qmaxtthe maximum tolerance value of the execution time required in the performance requirement is developed;
actual ratio of throughput PQtp，PQtp＝Qtp/Qmintp，
Wherein Q istpFor throughput, it is the maximum number of requests that the software can handle in a time interval of Δ t, i.e. Qtp＝Max(Ssuccess)；
QmintpTo develop the minimum throughput tolerance value required in the performance requirements.
The step 2 specifically comprises the following steps: the quality evaluation factor is divided into an intermediate evaluation factor and a decision evaluation factor, wherein the intermediate evaluation factor is an incomplete representation of an efficiency or quality factor and is used for calculating the decision evaluation factor, the value of the decision evaluation factor directly influences the comprehensive evaluation value, and the decision evaluation factor is determined as follows: pnfOr Pnaf×Pnf、Pc、Pgf、Psf、Pta、Ptf、Qr、PQt、PQtpAnd Qa；
Wherein, Pnaf×Pnf、Pnf、Pc、Pgf、PQtIs a very small factor, Psf、Pta、Ptf、Qr、PQtp、QaIs a maximum form factor;
p-pole small factor x ═ Pnaf×PnfOr PnfOr PcOr PgfOr PQtCarrying out pretreatment, specifically: x is the number of*＝1-x；
P-type very large factor x ═ PsfOr PtaOr PtfOr QrOr PQtpOr QaCarrying out pretreatment, specifically: x is the number of*＝x。
The step 3 specifically comprises the following steps:
the evaluator arranges the ultra small factors and the ultra large factors after the pretreatment in the step 2 according to the importance degree from high to low into a set
In which m is the number of decision evaluation factors, i.e.
Is more important than
1 and 2 … m, and the decision maker gives a weight value omega of each evaluation factor according to the quality requirement, development process data and self experience of softwarei
The step 4 specifically comprises the following steps:
preprocessing each evaluation factor and then integrating the evaluation factors to calculate to obtain a comprehensive evaluation value Q of the quality of the software productun：
The invention has the advantages that
The invention fills the blank of lacking a software comprehensive quality quantitative evaluation model developed based on a product line, accurately and objectively evaluates each measurement item, overcomes the defect that a single model cannot adapt to software with different characteristics, converts all the measurement items into quality evaluation factors capable of being quantitatively calculated, and calculates the comprehensive evaluation value of the software quality through the quality evaluation factors of each development stage according to the self-definition of the software characteristics.
Detailed Description
The present invention will be described in detail with reference to the following embodiments.
A software quality evaluation method based on product line development is implemented according to the following steps:
step 1, determining quality evaluation factors of a product line architecture stage, a frame component retrieval, selection and construction stage, a frame implementation stage and a product application stage, wherein the quality evaluation factors specifically comprise:
the quality assessment factors at the product line architecture stage include:
firstly, comparing the requirements of the new system with the field requirements to determine whether the field has an existing product architecture which can be directly reused;
if the existing product architecture exists, the quality evaluation factor is: new frame N of support expanding function that needs to be creatednafForm of the whole frame N with support and expansion functionsafRatio P ofnaf，
Pnaf＝Nnaf/Naf；
And a new frame N for supporting the expansion function to be creatednafForm of the whole frame N with support and expansion functionsafRatio P ofnafAnd a new frame N for supporting and expanding functions to be creatednafOccupies all frames N required for forming a new frameworkfRatio P ofnfThe product of the two is: pnaf×Pnf；
If there is no existing product structure, the quality evaluation factor is: new frame N of support expanding function that needs to be creatednafOccupies all frames N required for forming a new frameworkfRatio P ofnf，Pnf＝Nnaf/Nf。
The quality evaluation factors in the retrieval, selection and construction stages of the frame component are as follows:
after the frame elements of the new product are determined, the members required for forming the frame are further searched in the dedicated member library and the general member library. A framework is a set of interrelated components that solve some sub-problem of a product line architecture. The special component library is served for a certain framework in a specific field, can serve for a plurality of product line frameworks, and provides direct and uniform storage and retrieval services for the framework. Therefore, the problems of structural isomerism, term semantic difference and the like can be shielded and described to a certain extent when the components in the special component library are searched, and the accuracy and the efficiency of selection are improved;
the product of the proportion of the component obtained from the general component library and the proportion of the component required to be newly developed is: pc＝Pgc×(1-Psc-Pgc)
Wherein, Psc＝Nsc/Nc，Pgc＝Ngc/Nc，NcIs a member in the frame, NscTo obtain components from a dedicated component library, PscIs a member N in the framecObtaining component N from a dedicated component libraryscIn a ratio of NgcFor obtaining components, P, from a common component librarygcIs a member N in the framecObtaining component N from a common component librarygcThe ratio of (A) to (B);
the quality assessment factors of the framework implementation stage include:
the components need to be assembled into the frame by means of adapters or glue codes, code development L in this processnfWith the mean code line L of the members making up the frameworkacRatio P ofgfIs a key parameter reflecting the suitability of the component;
code development amount LnfWith the mean code line L of the members making up the frameworkacRatio P ofgfI.e. is Pgf＝Lnf/Lac；
The assembled frame is tested, if the frame can not pass the test, the frame needs to be reassembled by replacing the components and tested again, so the one-time passing rate P of the frame testsf(number of one-pass frames NsfTotal number of frames Nf) Is an important factor for restricting the efficiency and quality of the frame realization stage;
the one-pass rate of the frame test is Psf＝Nsf/NfIn which N issfFor one pass through the number of frames, NfIs the total number of frames;
after the frame test, performing a frame integration test and a product test, wherein the code defect density C of the frame integration testnfCode defect density C of product testnaIs the primary indicator reflecting the quality of the code. However, the defect density of the code cannot directly reflect the quality and efficiency of a product developed based on a product line, and the defect density C of the code when successfully applied or tested by frame packaging similar to the frame should be passedpfCode defect density C during similar mature product test or framework on-line testpaComparing the quality factor with the reference substance;
frame integration test quality to efficiency ratio PtfNamely: ptf＝Cpf/CnfWherein, CnfCode defect density for framework integration testing, CpfCode defect density at the time of frame package test;
product testing quality to efficiency ratio PtaNamely: pta＝Cpa/CnaIn which C isnaCode defect density for product testing, CpaCode defect density C for testing similar mature products or on-line testing of architecturepa；
The quality assessment factors of the product application stage comprise:
reliability QrThe probability that the software runs without faults in a specified time period is defined as follows:
that is, within the time interval Δ t, S is the total service request provided by the software product, and F represents an incomplete service request;
availability QaMean normal operating ratio;
wherein MTTR is the mean repair time, MTBF is the mean time between failures,
n is within Δ tNumber of failures when service is requested, Tf(n)Is the time of the nth failure, Tr(n)Is the time when the nth failure is recovered to normal, Tr(n-1)The moment when the (n-1) th failure is recovered to be normal;
execution time real demand ratio PQt，PQt＝Qt/Qmaxt，
Wherein Q istTo execute time, is the average elapsed time to complete a service task,
Tq(m)is the time at which the software completes the service request, Ta(m)Is the service request arrival time, m is the number of requests to the software within a time interval Δ t in seconds;
Qmaxtthe maximum tolerance value of the execution time required in the performance requirement is developed;
actual ratio of throughput PQtp，PQtp＝Qtp/Qmintp，
Wherein Q istpFor throughput, it is the maximum number of requests that the software can handle in a time interval of Δ t, i.e. Qtp＝Max(Ssuccess)；
QmintpTo develop the minimum throughput tolerance value required in the performance requirements;
step 2, determining quality evaluation factor pretreatment, specifically comprising: the quality evaluation factor is divided into an intermediate evaluation factor and a decision evaluation factor, wherein the intermediate evaluation factor is an incomplete representation of an efficiency or quality factor and is used for calculating the decision evaluation factor, the value of the decision evaluation factor directly influences the comprehensive evaluation value, and the decision evaluation factor is determined as follows: pnfOr Pnaf×Pnf、Pc、Pgf、Psf、Pta、Ptf、Qr、PQt、PQtpAnd Qa；
Wherein, Pnaf×Pnf、Pnf、Pc、Pgf、PQtIs a very small factor, Psf、Pta、Ptf、Qr、PQtp、QaIs a maximum form factor;
p-pole small factor x ═ Pnaf×PnfOr PnfOr PcOr PgfOr PQtCarrying out pretreatment, specifically: x is the number of*＝1-x；
P-type very large factor x ═ PsfOr PtaOr PtfOr QrOr PQtpOr QaCarrying out pretreatment, specifically: x is the number of*＝x。
Step 3, determining the weight of each quality assessment factor, specifically: the evaluator arranges the ultra small factors and the ultra large factors after the pretreatment in the step 2 according to the importance degree from high to low into a set
In which m is the number of decision evaluation factors, i.e.
Is more important than
1 and 2 … m, and the decision maker gives a weight value omega of each evaluation factor according to the quality requirement, development process data and self experience of softwarei，
Step 4, calculating a comprehensive evaluation value of the software quality, specifically: preprocessing each evaluation factor and then integrating the evaluation factors to calculate to obtain a comprehensive evaluation value Q of the quality of the software productun：
The invention develops data processing software based on a space measurement and control software architecture according to a space measurement and control software development process based on a product line, collects data of each stage of the development process and calculates a quality evaluation factor as shown in table 1:
data processing software quality comprehensive evaluation value
Qun＝0.09445+0.059178+0.019302+0.02723+0.024675+0.05115+0.149985+0.09+0.24+0.149925＝0.9059。
TABLE 1 data processing software quality assessment factor and weight
Claims (9)
1. A software quality evaluation method based on product line development is characterized by comprising the following steps:
step 1, determining quality evaluation factors of each stage in a development process;
step 2, determining quality evaluation factor pretreatment;
step 3, determining the weight of each decision quality evaluation factor;
and 4, calculating a comprehensive evaluation value of the software quality.
2. The software quality evaluation method based on product line development according to claim 1, wherein each stage of the development process in step 1 is specifically four stages, namely a stage of determining a product line architecture, a stage of retrieving, selecting and constructing frame components, a stage of implementing a frame and a stage of applying a product.
3. The software quality assessment method based on product line development according to claim 2, wherein the method for determining the quality assessment factor of the product line architecture stage in step 1 specifically comprises:
firstly, comparing the requirements of the new system with the field requirements to determine whether the field has an existing product architecture which can be directly reused;
if the existing product architecture exists, the quality evaluation factor is: new frame N of support expanding function that needs to be creatednafForm of the whole frame N with support and expansion functionsafRatio P ofnaf，
Pnaf＝Nnaf/Naf；
And a new frame N for supporting the expansion function to be creatednafForm of the whole frame N with support and expansion functionsafRatio P ofnafAnd a new frame N for supporting and expanding functions to be creatednafOccupies all frames N required for forming a new frameworkfRatio P ofnfThe product of the two is: pnaf×Pnf；
If there is no existing product structure, the quality evaluation factor is: new frame N of support expanding function that needs to be creatednafOccupies all frames N required for forming a new frameworkfRatio P ofnf，Pnf＝Nnaf/Nf。
4. The software quality assessment method based on product line development according to claim 3, wherein the quality assessment factors of the frame component in the retrieval, selection and construction stages in step 1 are as follows:
the product of the proportion of the component obtained from the general component library and the proportion of the component required to be newly developed is: pc＝Pgc×(1-Psc-Pgc)
Wherein, Psc＝Nsc/Nc，Pgc＝Ngc/Nc，NcIs a member in the frame, NscTo obtain components from a dedicated component library, PscIs a member N in the framecObtaining component N from a dedicated component libraryscIn a ratio of NgcFor obtaining components, P, from a common component librarygcIs a member N in the framecObtaining component N from a common component librarygcThe ratio of (a) to (b).
5. The software quality assessment method based on product line development according to claim 4, wherein the quality assessment factor of the framework implementation stage in step 1 comprises:
code development amount LnfWith the mean code line L of the members making up the frameworkacRatio P ofgfI.e. is Pgf＝Lnf/Lac；
The one-pass rate of the frame test is Psf＝Nsf/NfIn which N issfFor one pass through the number of frames, NfIs the total number of frames;
frame integration test quality to efficiency ratio PtfNamely: ptf＝Cpf/CnfWherein, CnfCode defect density for framework integration testing, CpfCode defect density at the time of frame package test;
product testing quality to efficiency ratio PtaNamely: pta＝Cpa/CnaIn which C isnaCode defect density for product testing, CpaCode defect density C for testing similar mature products or on-line testing of architecturepa。
6. The software quality assessment method based on product line development according to claim 5, wherein the quality assessment factor of the product application stage in step 1 comprises:
reliability QrThe probability that the software runs without faults in a specified time period is defined as follows:
that is, within the time interval Δ t, S is the total service request provided by the software product, and F represents an incomplete service request;
availability QaMean normal operating ratio;
wherein MTTR is the mean repair time, MTBF is the mean time between failures,
n is the number of failures occurring when service is requested within Δ T, Tf(n)Is the time of the nth failure, Tr(n)Is the time when the nth failure is recovered to normal, Tr(n-1)The moment when the (n-1) th failure is recovered to be normal;
execution time real demand ratio PQt，PQt＝Qt/Qmaxt，
Wherein Q istTo execute time, is the average elapsed time to complete a service task,
Tq(m)is the time at which the software completes the service request, Ta(m)Is the service request arrival time, m is the number of requests to the software within a time interval Δ t in seconds;
Qmaxtthe maximum tolerance value of the execution time required in the performance requirement is developed;
actual ratio of throughput PQtp，PQtp＝Qtp/Qmintp，
Wherein Q istpFor throughput, it is the maximum number of requests that the software can handle in a time interval of Δ t, i.e. Qtp＝Max(Ssuccess)；
QmintpTo develop the minimum throughput tolerance value required in the performance requirements.
7. The software quality assessment method based on product line development according to claim 6, wherein the step 2 specifically comprises: the quality evaluation factors are divided into intermediate evaluation factors and decision evaluation factors, the intermediate evaluation factors are incomplete representations of efficiency or quality factors, and the applicationTo calculate the decision evaluation factor, the value of the decision evaluation factor directly affects the overall evaluation value, and the decision evaluation factor is determined as follows: pnfOr Pnaf×Pnf、Pc、Pgf、Psf、Pta、Ptf、Qr、PQt、PQtpAnd Qa；
Wherein, Pnaf×Pnf、Pnf、Pc、Pgf、PQtIs a very small factor, Psf、Pta、Ptf、Qr、PQtp、QaIs a maximum form factor;
p-pole small factor x ═ Pnaf×PnfOr PnfOr PcOr PgfOr PQtCarrying out pretreatment, specifically: x is the number of*＝1-x；
P-type very large factor x ═ PsfOr PtaOr PtfOr QrOr PQtpOr QaCarrying out pretreatment, specifically: x is the number of*＝x。
8. The software quality assessment method based on product line development according to claim 7, wherein the step 3 specifically comprises:
the evaluator arranges the ultra small factors and the ultra large factors after the pretreatment in the step 2 according to the importance degree from high to low into a set
In which m is the number of decision evaluation factors, i.e.
Is more important than
The decision maker gives the weight value omega of each evaluation factor according to the quality requirement, development process data and self experience of the softwarei
9. The software quality assessment method based on product line development according to claim 8, wherein the step 4 specifically comprises:
preprocessing each evaluation factor and then integrating the evaluation factors to calculate to obtain a comprehensive evaluation value Q of the quality of the software productun：
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110719381.9A CN113377642B (en) | 2021-06-28 | 2021-06-28 | Software quality evaluation method based on product line development |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110719381.9A CN113377642B (en) | 2021-06-28 | 2021-06-28 | Software quality evaluation method based on product line development |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN113377642A true CN113377642A (en) | 2021-09-10 |
| CN113377642B CN113377642B (en) | 2023-03-24 |
Family
ID=77579484
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110719381.9A Expired - Fee Related CN113377642B (en) | 2021-06-28 | 2021-06-28 | Software quality evaluation method based on product line development |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN113377642B (en) |
Citations (8)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JP2005326953A (en) * | 2004-05-12 | 2005-11-24 | Nec Corp | Software quality evaluation system and method, and program for evaluating software quality |
| US20060041857A1 (en) * | 2004-08-18 | 2006-02-23 | Xishi Huang | System and method for software estimation |
| WO2015088066A1 (en) * | 2013-12-10 | 2015-06-18 | 슈어소프트테크주식회사 | Software quality evaluation module and method, and computer-readable recording medium having, recorded thereon, program for implementing software quality evaluation method |
| CN105468512A (en) * | 2014-09-05 | 2016-04-06 | 北京畅游天下网络技术有限公司 | Method and system for evaluating software quality |
| US20170019496A1 (en) * | 2015-07-14 | 2017-01-19 | Tuvi Orbach | Needs-matching navigator system |
| CN107766249A (en) * | 2017-10-27 | 2018-03-06 | 广东电网有限责任公司信息中心 | A kind of software quality comprehensive estimation method of Kernel-based methods monitoring |
| CN109408359A (en) * | 2018-08-03 | 2019-03-01 | 中国人民解放军63928部队 | A kind of software test procedure quality metric method and system |
| CN110825626A (en) * | 2019-10-25 | 2020-02-21 | 军事科学院系统工程研究院系统总体研究所 | Method for evaluating autonomous controllability of software product |
-
2021
- 2021-06-28 CN CN202110719381.9A patent/CN113377642B/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
Patent Citations (8)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JP2005326953A (en) * | 2004-05-12 | 2005-11-24 | Nec Corp | Software quality evaluation system and method, and program for evaluating software quality |
| US20060041857A1 (en) * | 2004-08-18 | 2006-02-23 | Xishi Huang | System and method for software estimation |
| WO2015088066A1 (en) * | 2013-12-10 | 2015-06-18 | 슈어소프트테크주식회사 | Software quality evaluation module and method, and computer-readable recording medium having, recorded thereon, program for implementing software quality evaluation method |
| CN105468512A (en) * | 2014-09-05 | 2016-04-06 | 北京畅游天下网络技术有限公司 | Method and system for evaluating software quality |
| US20170019496A1 (en) * | 2015-07-14 | 2017-01-19 | Tuvi Orbach | Needs-matching navigator system |
| CN107766249A (en) * | 2017-10-27 | 2018-03-06 | 广东电网有限责任公司信息中心 | A kind of software quality comprehensive estimation method of Kernel-based methods monitoring |
| CN109408359A (en) * | 2018-08-03 | 2019-03-01 | 中国人民解放军63928部队 | A kind of software test procedure quality metric method and system |
| CN110825626A (en) * | 2019-10-25 | 2020-02-21 | 军事科学院系统工程研究院系统总体研究所 | Method for evaluating autonomous controllability of software product |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| CN113377642B (en) | 2023-03-24 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Vahdani et al. | A bi-objective interval-stochastic robust optimization model for designing closed loop supply chain network with multi-priority queuing system | |
| US8340948B1 (en) | Fleet performance optimization tool for aircraft health management | |
| US10748089B2 (en) | Method and system for automatic evaluation of robustness and disruption management for commercial airline flight operations | |
| CN109816412B (en) | Training model generation method, device, equipment and computer storage medium | |
| CN107545110B (en) | Dynamic stress accelerated life test profile compiling method | |
| CN102446135B (en) | Software quality detection method | |
| CN110618924A (en) | Link pressure testing method of web application system | |
| Dabbagh et al. | An approach for prioritizing NFRs according to their relationship with FRs | |
| Wang et al. | Multi-phase reliability growth test planning for repairable products sold with a two-dimensional warranty | |
| CN113377642B (en) | Software quality evaluation method based on product line development | |
| Zhang et al. | NHPP-based software reliability model considering testing effort and multivariate fault detection rate | |
| Luo et al. | Where to fix temporal violations: A novel handling point selection strategy for business cloud workflows | |
| CN110083933B (en) | Bayesian degradation analysis method for corrosion pipeline considering random effect | |
| CN106855843B (en) | Performance analysis method and device of Web system | |
| Gullo | In-service reliability assessment and top-down approach provides alternative reliability prediction method | |
| CN104572455B (en) | One kind is based on markovian component-based software reliability estimation method | |
| US20120253880A1 (en) | Simulating dependency of token arrival on process performance | |
| Swarnakar et al. | Lean Six Sigma project selection using analytical network process | |
| Pang et al. | Study on simulation modeling and evaluation of equipment maintenance | |
| CN112183875B (en) | Multi-factor online purchasing behavior conversion prediction method based on user and product level | |
| CN114924941B (en) | Pipeline model-based performance evaluation system and method for streaming computing scene solution | |
| Mawby | 1 Managing the Rework Cycle not the Schedule‐A Project Management Paradigm for the Future? | |
| CN112668233B (en) | Method and system for determining equipment use availability based on profile fault injection | |
| Khomonenko et al. | Nonstationary software testing models with cox distribution for fault resolution duration | |
| Pan et al. | A Novel Weak Component Identification Method for Complex Products Based on Multi-source Information |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant | ||
| CF01 | Termination of patent right due to non-payment of annual fee |
Granted publication date: 20230324 |