CN117194267A

CN117194267A - Software quality rating system based on cloud platform

Info

Publication number: CN117194267A
Application number: CN202311246265.5A
Authority: CN
Inventors: 季帅; 杨银银; 孙朝辉
Original assignee: Jiangsu Tianhao Fuxing Data Technology Co ltd
Current assignee: Jiangsu Tianhao Fuxing Data Technology Co ltd
Priority date: 2023-09-26
Filing date: 2023-09-26
Publication date: 2023-12-08
Anticipated expiration: 2043-09-26
Also published as: CN117194267B

Abstract

The application discloses a software quality rating system based on a cloud platform, which comprises: the system comprises an initial rating module, a second rating module, a presentation time rating module, a version rating module, a verification exit rating module, a presentation standard rating module, a record integrity rating module, a review integrity rating module and a demand deviation rating module; the method comprises an initial rating module, a second rating module, a time-to-mention rating module, a version rating module, a verification exit rating module, a standard-to-mention rating module, a record integrity rating module, a review integrity rating module and a demand deviation rating module, wherein the quality rating is carried out by utilizing the number of version defects, the proportion of key quality problems, the sending time of a version-to-mention mail, the time-to-mention in a starting mail, the actual version number, defects associated with non-closed defect data and removed versions, whether the test standard is met, the process record is met, whether project review is complete, and whether the demand deviation exists or not, so that the quality rating of the software version is obtained.

Description

Software quality rating system based on cloud platform

Technical Field

The application relates to the technical field of cloud computing and software quality evaluation, in particular to a software quality rating system based on a cloud platform.

Background

Although the software quality model is a common evaluation method, the software quality model has the defects of subjectivity, limitation, difficulty in quantification, statics, dependence and the like, and needs to be comprehensively considered and weighed in practical application.

1. Subjectivity: software quality models typically rely on artificial subjective assessment, so there may be personal bias and subjective judgment of the evaluator. Different evaluators may give different evaluation results, resulting in inconsistency of the evaluation results.

2. Limitations: often, a software quality model can only evaluate the quality of software in a particular aspect, such as functionality, reliability, maintainability, etc., and cannot fully evaluate the overall quality of the software. This may result in one-sidedness of the evaluation result, which may not fully reflect the true quality of the software.

3. Difficult to quantify: software quality models typically use qualitative assessment indicators, and it is difficult to quantify specific values of software quality. This makes it difficult to perform efficient comparison and analysis because of limited comparability and repeatability of the evaluation results.

4. Dependency: software quality models typically depend on specific evaluation methods and tools, and may not be applicable for different software development environments and technology stacks. This limits the versatility and applicability of the software quality model.

The existing software quality model lacks the embodiment of the actual quality of the software, the rating standard is more general, and obvious quality advantages and disadvantages are not realized.

Disclosure of Invention

In order to solve the technical problems, the application provides a software quality rating system based on a cloud platform, which comprises: the system comprises an initial rating module, a second rating module, a presentation time rating module, a version rating module, a verification exit rating module, a presentation standard rating module, a record integrity rating module, a review integrity rating module and a demand deviation rating module;

the initial rating module is used for determining initial rating based on the number of version defects;

the second rating module is used for carrying out second rating on the initial rating by utilizing the ratio of the key quality problems based on the initial rating to obtain a second rating result;

the time-to-send rating module is used for carrying out third rating on the basis of the second rating result by utilizing the version-to-send time of the mail and the marked time-to-send time in the starting mail to obtain a third rating result;

the version grade rating module is used for carrying out fourth grade rating by using an actual version number based on the third rating result to obtain a fourth evaluation result;

the verification exit rating module is used for carrying out fifth rating by utilizing the defect data which is not closed and defects associated with the removed version based on the fourth rating result to obtain a fifth rating result;

the extraction standard rating module is used for carrying out sixth rating according to whether the extraction standard is met or not based on the fifth evaluation result to obtain a sixth evaluation result;

the record integrity rating module is used for carrying out seventh rating by utilizing process records based on the sixth evaluation result to obtain a seventh evaluation result;

the evaluation integrity rating module is used for carrying out eighth rating by utilizing whether project evaluation is complete or not based on the seventh evaluation result to obtain an eighth evaluation result;

and the demand deviation rating module is used for carrying out ninth rating according to the existence of the demand deviation based on the eighth rating result to obtain a ninth rating result and obtain the quality rating of the version.

Optionally, the determining of the initial rating based on the number of version defects specifically includes:

when the number of version defects is less than 10, the rating is good;

when the version defect data is 10 or more, the rating is excellent.

Optionally, the step of performing the second ranking on the initial ranking by using the ratio of the key quality questions to obtain a second ranking result specifically includes:

the critical quality problem accounts for 100% of the ratio = critical quality problem number/version defect number;

when the ratio of the important quality problems is more than 10%, the quality is directly expressed as poor;

when the ratio of the key quality problems is more than zero and less than or equal to 10%, the rating is reduced by one step from the initial rating;

and when the ratio of the key quality problems is equal to zero, the rating is an initial rating.

Optionally, performing a third rating by using the version-set mail sending time and the set mail sending time marked in the start mail, where the obtaining a third evaluation result specifically includes:

when the version test mail sending time is longer than the test time marked in the starting mail, the quality is directly expressed as general;

and when the sending time of the version test mail is less than or equal to the test time marked in the starting mail, grading and taking a second evaluation result grade.

Optionally, performing the fourth rating by using the actual version number, and obtaining a fourth evaluation result includes:

versions are ordered from low to high: an ALPHA version, a DEMO version, a UAT version, and an RC version;

if the high version is changed to the low version, namely the version number is degraded, the rating is reduced by one level according to the level of the third evaluation result;

if the version number is changed from the low version to the high version or is not changed, namely the version number is upgraded or is not changed, the third evaluation result grade is rated.

Optionally, the performing the fifth grading by using the non-closed defect data and the defects associated with the removed version to obtain a fifth evaluation result specifically includes:

when the number of defects which are not closed in the version exceeds the version time is greater than zero, or the number of defects associated with the removed version is greater than zero, the grade is adjusted downwards by one grade according to the grade of the fourth evaluation result;

and when the number of defects which are not closed and the number of defects associated with removing the version are equal to zero after the version time is exceeded in the version, grading and taking a fourth evaluation result grade.

Optionally, the step of performing the sixth rating by using whether the extraction criterion is met specifically includes:

when the test fails to meet the test standard, the rating is returned, and the rating is reduced by one level according to the level of the fifth evaluation result;

and when the test does not meet the test standard and is returned, grading the fifth evaluation result grade.

Optionally, the obtaining the seventh evaluation result specifically includes:

when the lack of mail occurs, the rating is reduced by one level according to the level of the sixth evaluation result;

and when the lack of mail does not occur, grading to obtain the sixth evaluation result grade.

Optionally, whether the project review is completely rated for the eighth time, and obtaining the eighth evaluation result specifically includes:

when the review is absent, the rating is reduced by one level according to the level of the seventh evaluation result;

and when the review is not absent, grading to obtain the seventh evaluation result grade.

Optionally, obtaining a ninth evaluation result by using whether the demand deviation exists, where the obtaining the quality rating of the version specifically includes:

when the demand deviation exists, the rating is reduced by one level according to the level of the eighth evaluation result, and the final quality rating of the version is obtained;

and when no demand deviation exists, grading the eighth evaluation result grade, and obtaining a final quality grade of the version based on the eighth evaluation result grade.

Compared with the prior art, the application has the beneficial effects that:

the rating dimension and the rating rule provided by the application can improve the quality capability of the software version.

Drawings

In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the present application, the drawings that are needed in the embodiments are briefly described below, and it is obvious that the drawings in the following description are only some embodiments of the present application, and that other drawings can be obtained according to these drawings without inventive effort for a person skilled in the art.

Fig. 1 is a system structure diagram of a software quality rating system based on a cloud platform according to an embodiment of the present application.

Detailed Description

The following description of the embodiments of the present application will be made clearly and completely with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which it is apparent that the embodiments described are only some embodiments of the present application, but not all embodiments. All other embodiments, which can be made by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of the application without making any inventive effort, are intended to be within the scope of the application.

In order that the above-recited objects, features and advantages of the present application will become more readily apparent, a more particular description of the application will be rendered by reference to the appended drawings and appended detailed description.

Embodiment one:

in this embodiment, as shown in fig. 1, a software quality rating system based on a cloud platform includes: the system comprises an initial rating module, a second rating module, a presentation time rating module, a version rating module, a verification exit rating module, a presentation standard rating module, a record integrity rating module, a review integrity rating module and a demand deviation rating module;

firstly, when the software testing is completed in a staged mode, the software version number, the defect number, the quality label and the process record information are fed back to the cloud platform.

an initial rating is determined based on the number of version defects Q. A software item will typically be defined as a stage of the item with a version that has a start time and an end time. In the time range of version planning, the number of defects proposed by a tester to a software project is denoted as Q. The defect number Q may represent the workload of the publication to some extent. The overall initial quality of the version is evaluated by the number of defects Q. When Q is lower than a certain number, the version is simpler, the investment is less, and the obtained initial rating is lower; and when Q is higher than a certain number, the version is complex, the investment is more, and the obtained initial rating is higher.

The determination of the initial rating based on the number of version defects specifically includes:

when the number of version defects is less than 10, the rating is good;

when the version defect data is 10 or more, the rating is excellent.

and calculating the ratio E of the important quality problems according to the number Q of the version defects and the number W of the important quality problems, wherein E=W/Q is 100%. The critical quality problem number W refers to the number of defects with a special mark in the defect number Q. For example, a process cannot run through is marked as a "blocking problem"; the new problem of the original perfect function is marked as 'modification decline'; modifying the defect but not completing the repair of the problem is noted as "reopening"; the defect is low-level or prohibited by standard and marked as "basic problem", etc. And counting the defect number of all mark blocking problems, modification decay, reopening and basic problems in the version defect number Q, namely the important quality problem number W. The quality of the version can be expressed by the ratio of W to Q, and thus is one of the criteria of the rating, noted as the important quality problem occupation ratio E.

Performing secondary rating on the initial rating by using the ratio of the key quality problems, wherein the obtaining of a second rating result specifically comprises the following steps:

the key quality problem accounts for ratio = key quality problem number/version defect number 100%;

when the ratio of the important quality problem is more than 10%, the quality is directly expressed as poor;

when the ratio of the important quality questions is equal to zero, the rating takes the initial rating.

The time-to-extract rating module is used for carrying out third rating on the basis of the second rating result by utilizing the version-to-extract mail sending time and the time-to-extract time marked in the starting mail to obtain a third rating result;

and comparing the sending time D1 of the mail according to the version and the extracting time D2 of the mail started by the version. Three types of record mails are respectively started, tested and transmitted in the whole version period. Starting the version, sending a starting mail, and marking the lifting time in the starting mail as D2; the developer completes the function development and sends the test mail, and the sending time of the test mail is recorded as D1. If the rating is not set forth on schedule, the version progress problem is indicated, and thus one of the standards of rating is that: when D1> D2, then the quality final rating is directly generic. Wherein the final rating remains poor when the version has achieved a lower poor rating in the previous step; and (5) the rating is further reduced by one level when other abnormal items appear later. And when D1 is less than or equal to D2, the final rating is equal to the rating of the last step. E > 10% of step 2 is worse, and D1> D2 of step 3 is general, the only two direct overrides in the overall rating system are set to lower rated rules.

and whether the level is adjusted downwards in the current stage or not according to the actual version number. The ALPHA version, DEMO version, UAT version and RC version are stage definition identifiers of software version, and the quality requirement is sequentially from low to high. The occurrence of a change from a high version to a low version indicates that the version quality requirement is low, thus being one of the criteria for rating.

Performing fourth rating by using the actual version number, and obtaining a fourth evaluation result comprises:

And defining the relevant information of the current software version and providing a standard for the subsequent specific rating. Including version number definitions and quality label definitions. The version numbers are divided into according to actual requirements: an ALPHA version, a DEMO version, a UAT version, an RC version, and defining a version level. The version number definition is shown in table 1.

TABLE 1

Version number	Grade
		Version ALPHA	First level
DEMO version	Second-level
		UAT version	Three stages
RC version	Four-stage

The quality label is added according to different abnormal conditions reflected by defects and is mainly divided into: the basic problem, production failure, blocking problem, modification decay, reopening. The defect of adding quality labels is the important quality problem.

The verification exit rating module is used for carrying out fifth rating by utilizing the non-closed defect data and defects associated with the removed version based on the fourth evaluation result to obtain a fifth evaluation result;

and according to the number R of defects which are not closed when the version time exceeds the version time in the version, and the number T of defects associated with the removed version. The version defect number Q is used as the release content of the version to require all verification to be closed, wherein two situations of version out-of-date non-closing and version associated defect removal occur, at the moment, the number of non-closing defects exceeding the release time in the version is recorded as R, and the number of version associated defect removal is recorded as T. Whenever R or T is greater than 0, it indicates that there is a problem in version quality or progress, thus being one of the criteria for rating.

Performing fifth grading by using the non-closed defect data and the defects associated with the removed version, wherein the fifth evaluation result specifically comprises the following steps:

and according to whether the intra-version extraction is returned because the extraction standard is not met or not. Failure to meet the test criteria is recalled including, but not limited to: 1. testing the smoking cases, and developing execution passing of 100% of the smoking cases; 2. the number of basic questions is > 5; 3. blocking problems > 2; 4. the flow card shell causes that the basic flow cannot be passed through, and the test cannot be normally performed; 5. design review is not performed; 6. projects, developments, tests do not participate in common with achieving consensus demand reviews. The occurrence of a recall indicates that the version quality is problematic and thus serves as one of the criteria for rating.

Carrying out a sixth rating by using whether the extraction standard is met, wherein the sixth rating result comprises the following specific steps:

and when the test does not meet the test standard and is returned, the fifth evaluation result grade is rated.

The record integrity rating module is used for obtaining a seventh evaluation result by utilizing whether the process record is completely rated for the seventh time based on the sixth evaluation result;

whether the record is missing or not according to the process. The process record includes: starting mail, testing mail and sending edition mail.

Whether the seventh rating is completely performed by using the process record, the obtaining of the seventh rating result specifically comprises:

when the lack of mail occurs, the rating is lowered by one level according to the level of the sixth evaluation result;

when the lack of mail does not occur, the rating takes the sixth rating result rating.

The evaluation integrity rating module is used for completely carrying out eighth rating by utilizing whether project evaluation is completed or not based on the seventh evaluation result to obtain an eighth evaluation result;

and judging whether the project is missing or not according to the project. The project reviews include demand reviews, design reviews, and use case reviews.

The eighth rating is performed completely by using the project review, and the eighth rating result is obtained specifically comprises:

when the requirement review, the design review and the use case review are absent, the rating is reduced by one level according to the level of the seventh evaluation result;

and when the demand review, the design review and the use case review are not lacked, grading and taking the seventh evaluation result grade.

And the demand deviation rating module is used for carrying out ninth rating according to whether the demand deviation exists or not based on the eighth rating result, so as to obtain a ninth rating result and obtain the quality rating of the version.

Depending on whether there is a demand bias. The demand bias includes: 1. n functions are originally planned for the version, and one or more functions are added after the version is started; 2. the prior requirements are unclear or the functions are changed, so that the workload is increased due to the change of the original implementation mode of the functions in the version.

And carrying out a ninth rating by using whether the demand deviation exists, and obtaining a ninth evaluation result, wherein the quality rating of the obtained version specifically comprises the following steps:

and when the demand deviation does not exist, the grade is taken as an eighth evaluation result grade, and the final quality grade of the version is obtained based on the eighth evaluation result grade.

In this embodiment, the different rating dimensions are shown in Table 2:

TABLE 2

Version ALPHA: the version aims at adding, deleting, checking and modifying functions of each module to be normal, and the integrated test is not passed. DEMO version: the goal of the version is to solve the problem of all functional errors, the whole flow can be normally circulated, no bug of block exists, and the pre-condition and the post-condition are correct. UAT version: the user trial version may be used in the user testing phase. RC version: the online version is used for online and can be used for users.

In this embodiment, the ratings are excellent, good, general, and poor, respectively, from high to low. The rating rules and rating result criteria are shown in table 3:

TABLE 3 Table 3

And calculating the quality rating of the software version according to the rating rule according to whether each dimension is abnormal or not, thereby effectively measuring the quality level of the software and improving the software research and development process.

Example two

Example application:

1. example one:

item a version information:

(1) Defect number q=275;

(2) The number of important quality questions w=35, and the ratio of important quality questions e=12.73%;

(3) Version-up mail sending time d1=2023/9/5, and version-up mail lifting time d2=2023/9/5;

(4) The RC version is unchanged;

(5) The number of defects r=1 not closed beyond the time of release within the version, and the number of defects t=2 associated with the removal version;

(6) The execution pass is returned for the case of smoking not 100%;

(7) The process record has no loss;

(8) No deletion exists in project review;

(9) No deviation is required;

rating:

(1) Defect number q=275 > 10, initial rating is excellent;

(2) The key quality problem accounts for the ratio e=12.73% > 10%, the quality final rating is directly poor (the lowest rating is already obtained, and other rating terms do not need to be calculated any more);

outputting a result: item a version rated "poor";

2. example two:

item B version information:

(1) Defect number q=9;

(2) The number of key quality questions w=0, the key quality questions accounting for the ratio e=0%;

(4) The DEMO version is unchanged;

(5) The number of defects r=0 that are not closed beyond the time of version initiation within the version, and the number of defects t=0 associated with the removed version;

(6) The absence of the message is sent back;

(7) The process record has no loss;

(8) No deletion exists in project review;

(9) No deviation is required;

rating:

(1) The number of defects q=9 < 10, the initial rating was good

(2) Sequentially calculating according to the steps 2 to 9, wherein each rating dimension is not degraded according to the rating rule

Outputting a result: project B version rated "good";

3. example three:

item C version information:

(1) Defect number q=85;

(2) The number of important quality questions w=3, and the ratio of important quality questions e=3.53%;

(4) UAT version unchanged;

(5) The number of defects r=0 that are not closed beyond the time of release within the version, and the number of defects t=2 associated with the removal version;

(6) The absence of the message is sent back;

(7) The process record has no loss;

(8) No deletion exists in project review;

(9) No deviation is required;

rating:

(1) The number of defects q=85 > 10, the initial rating being excellent;

(2) Sequentially calculating according to the steps 2 to 9, degrading according to the rating rules in the steps 2 and 5, and making other steps normal;

outputting a result: the project C version was rated "general".

The above embodiments are merely illustrative of the preferred embodiments of the present application, and the scope of the present application is not limited thereto, but various modifications and improvements made by those skilled in the art to which the present application pertains are made without departing from the spirit of the present application, and all modifications and improvements fall within the scope of the present application as defined in the appended claims.

Claims

1. A cloud platform-based software quality rating system, comprising: the system comprises an initial rating module, a second rating module, a presentation time rating module, a version rating module, a verification exit rating module, a presentation standard rating module, a record integrity rating module, a review integrity rating module and a demand deviation rating module;

2. The cloud platform-based software quality rating system of claim 1, wherein said determining an initial rating based on a number of version defects specifically comprises:

when the number of version defects is less than 10, the rating is good;

when the version defect data is 10 or more, the rating is excellent.

3. The cloud platform based software quality rating system of claim 2, wherein: the step of performing secondary rating on the initial rating by using the ratio of the key quality problems to obtain a secondary rating result specifically comprises the following steps:

4. The cloud platform-based software quality rating system according to claim 3, wherein the third rating using the version-wise mail sending time and the time-wise mail marked in the start-up mail to obtain a third evaluation result specifically comprises:

5. The cloud platform based software quality rating system of claim 4, wherein performing a fourth rating using the actual version number, the fourth rating comprising:

6. The cloud platform based software quality rating system of claim 5, wherein said fifth rating using the non-shutdown defect data and the removed version-associated defects specifically comprises:

7. The cloud platform-based software quality rating system of claim 6, wherein said performing a sixth rating with whether the extracted criterion is satisfied, obtaining a sixth evaluation result specifically comprises:

8. The cloud platform-based software quality rating system according to claim 7, wherein the obtaining a seventh evaluation result by using the process record to complete the seventh rating specifically comprises:

9. The cloud platform-based software quality rating system according to claim 8, wherein the obtaining the eighth evaluation result by using whether the project review is completely rated for the eighth time specifically comprises:

10. The cloud platform-based software quality rating system of claim 9, wherein obtaining a ninth evaluation result by using whether the demand deviation exists to perform a ninth rating, and obtaining a quality rating of the version specifically comprises: