JP2000112747A - Device for verifying equivalence of non-executable statement in program resource - Google Patents

Abstract

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To automate equivalence verification about a non-executable statement and to execute verification in a short time and with high quality by comparing programs before and after shifting and deciding whether or not to follow defined specification. SOLUTION: An original resource 14 and a post-generation resource 15 to be equivalence verification objects are read from inputting means 12 and 13, and a non-executable statement analyzing means 11 extracts non-executable statements and generates a non-executable statement analysis table 61. A non- executable statement group grasping means 21 decides a group based on a specific reference and stores the decision results in the table 61. A non- executable statement comparing means 41 compares non-executable statements based on the table 61 and a specification table 71 in which generation specification requirements produced in each language specification are stored, stores decision results in a specification table 81 for verification and also decides the equivalence of the non-executable statements in a SECTION unit in every group associated with the means 21. The comparison results are outputted to a printer 52 and a display device 53.

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0001]

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates to a verification method for verifying the identity of a product obtained by a generative migration accompanying a migration of a program asset, for performing a verification operation efficiently and with high quality, and It relates to a processing device. In general, there are two types of transfer of program assets: a transfer by conversion by a converter and a transfer by generation by a generator. Here, the generative transition refers to the latter form.
Generative migration refers to a conversion method in which a program created in one language is input, temporarily extracted as an intermediate file, and the intermediate file is replaced with a program created in another language, which enables complex migration processing .

The following patterns can be considered as the main forms of the generation type transition. COBOL language → C language COBOL language → YPS specification language PL / 1 language → COBOL language RPG language → COBOL language JCL conversion ADL conversion etc. As a generation type transition, from COBOL language to C language, COB
When moving from OL language to YPS specification language, etc.,
It is necessary to verify that the original asset and the generated asset are equivalent. At this time, in order to verify that the original asset and the generated asset are equivalent, two statements, an executable statement (eg, an instruction) related at the time of execution and a non-executable statement (annotation statement, data definition, etc.) not related at the time of execution, are used. Both must be verified to be equivalent. Therefore, there is a need for a technique for verifying non-executable statements in program assets.

[0003]

2. Description of the Related Art In an environment in which a large number of program assets must be transferred and assets must be transferred, it is important to verify the identity of the assets generated by the generation-type transfer with the original assets. It requires effort. As a method of verifying the equivalence of related executable statements at the time of executing a program asset, techniques such as execution using test data and object equivalence verification have already been established. However, a non-executable statement cannot be verified by the above-described method, and thus can be verified only by printing out a program and visually executing the program manually.

In order to verify the equivalence of a non-executable statement, it is necessary to compare and check the description contents, the description position, and the description order with reference to a program migration specification. For this reason, there is a problem that a cost and a period are required for the verification, and the inspection quality is poor.

[0005]

As described above, when verifying the identity between the original asset before the transfer and the asset after the transfer, particularly in the case of verifying the equivalence of the non-executable statement, the program asset is transferred. Since the visual inspection is performed manually, the work period, the amount of work, and the work cost required for the inspection are enormous, and the load is considerably high. In addition, the quality of the inspection was poor and often hindered the migration work.

[0006] The present invention has been made in view of such circumstances, and is required for transferring program assets and the like.
Providing and implementing a new non-executable sentence equivalency verification processor that contributes to accuracy and speed in non-executable sentence equivalence verification work in the identity verification of original and generated assets A new program storage medium for storing a program to be stored.

[0007]

According to the present invention, there is provided an equivalence checking apparatus for checking whether non-executable statements included in a plurality of programs generated in accordance with a transition of a program are equivalent. Specification definition means for defining an executable statement of one instruction and description specifications of a non-executable statement added to the executable statement, and non-executable statement analyzing means for analyzing the contents and positions of the executable statement and the non-executable statement for programs before and after the migration And a plurality of programs before and after migration analyzed by the non-executable statement analysis unit are compared, and if the description specifications defined by the specification definition unit are followed, the non-executable statements of the programs before and after migration are equivalent. The above problem has been solved by preparing an equivalency verification device characterized by determining

Therefore, with the above configuration, when a non-executable statement is converted and output in accordance with an executable statement along with a program language conversion by the program shift, the position of the non-executable statement is determined by the specifications of the program language before and after the shift. Even if is changed, by defining the generation specification of the programming language in advance, it is possible to judge that the position of the non-executable statement before and after the transition is equivalent if it is output to the defined position. It is possible.

[0009]

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS When verifying the identity between program assets is roughly divided into two types, an equivalence verification of an executable statement and an equivalence verification of a non-executable statement. An object of the present invention is to provide a processing device for performing an analysis table of a non-executable statement, defining a generation specification, and verifying equivalence based on the specification in order to verify the equivalence of the non-executable statement.

In the following, the present invention will be described in detail according to an embodiment applied when equivalence verification of non-executable statements is performed in a general system for migrating program assets. FIG. 1 illustrates a system configuration of a non-executable sentence equivalence verification device (hereinafter, abbreviated as a verification device) to which the present invention is applied, which executes equivalence verification of non-executable sentences of a program asset.

A verification apparatus 10 shown in FIG. 1 includes an original asset 14 and a generated asset 15 to be verified for equivalence.
Are input means 12, 13 corresponding to the respective language specifications.
A non-executable statement is extracted from the read assets, the extracted non-executable statements are sequentially stored in a table format, and a non-executable statement analysis unit 11 for creating a non-executable statement analysis table 61; Non-executable statement analysis table 61
For each ECTION, the group determination criterion shown in FIG. 12A, that is, a single line comment / inline comment or a continuous line comment / inline comment in the data area is defined as one group. In addition, line comments / in-line comments that are scattered or continuous in one instruction are regarded as one group. Line comments / inline comments that are scattered or continuous in the middle of one conditional expression are regarded as one group. Based on the above criterion, it has a function of determining a group, and at that time, by performing a physical order comparison in SECTION units, also obtains correspondence information between groups and has a function of determining. From the non-executable sentence group grasping means 21 having a function of storing the discrimination result in the non-executable sentence analysis table, and the operator, based on a conversion specification accompanying a migration (not shown) prepared in advance, the items necessary for verification are described. , Input information, and a generation requirement specification is created in advance. After that, based on the requirement input means 31 for inputting the generation specification requirements created for each language specification of the program asset from the terminal device 01 and storing it in the specification table 71, the non-executable sentence analysis table 61, and the specification table 71 Has the function of comparing non-executable statements and storing the determination result in the verification specification table 81,
In addition, for each group associated with the non-executable statement group grasping means 21, a function to determine the equivalence of the non-executable statement in SECTION units, and by specification in consideration of program asset generation specification requirements It is composed of a non-executable sentence comparing means 41 having a function of determining equivalence by comparison, and a display means 51 for outputting a comparison result of the non-executable sentence comparing means 41 to a printing device 52 or a display device 53. . The terminal device 01 in the figure is a display device and a keyboard provided in the requirement input means 31 in the figure. Also, the printing device 52 in the figure
Is a printer device provided in the display means 51 in the figure, and a display device 53 in the figure is a display device provided in the display means 51 in the figure.

Here, the function of the non-executable sentence equivalence checking device of the present invention is specifically realized by a program, and this program is provided on a medium and installed in the non-executable sentence equivalence checking device. By operating on a memory, the present invention is realized. The non-executable sentence equivalence verifying apparatus of the present invention configured as described above includes an original asset 2-1 shown in FIG. 2 and a generated asset diagram 2 shown in FIG.
-2, input means 12, 1 corresponding to the language specification
3 and the data is input, the non-executable sentence analyzing means 11 extracts and analyzes only the non-executable sentence in the non-executable sentence analysis table (FIG. 3) and outputs it. The non-executable sentence analysis table is created separately for the original asset and for the generated asset. FIG. 3 shows a format of the non-executable statement analysis table and a brief description of each item. For example,
As shown in 2-1 original asset in FIG. 2, a non-executable statement such as comment 1 in sequence No. 000420 that exists solely is a non-executable statement analysis table (3--3 in FIG. 3).
1) "Comment 1" in the content column of the non-executable statement, "000420" in the SEQ column, "2" in the nest column because the comment 1 exists in the second hierarchy, and the presence / absence column of the non-executable statement in the command statement Is stored alone in the table while analyzing "N" because it is independent. In addition, sequence No. 000
For example, in the case of a comment 2 such as a comment 2 of 500 or a comment 3 of sequence No. 000520, in the case of the comment 2, the content column of the non-executable statement in the non-executable statement analysis table (3-1 in FIG. 3). "Comment 2", S
"000500" in the EQ column, "1" in the nest column, "Y" in the presence / absence of a non-executable statement in the command statement because "Y" exists in the middle of the MOVE instruction, and "word" immediately before the non-executable statement in the command Is
The word immediately before comment 2 is the sequence N of 2-1 in FIG.
Since the data item X1-DATA of o000490 corresponds, “X1-DATA” is displayed in the word column immediately after the non-executable statement in the instruction in the sequence No. 000510 of FIG.
Since “TO” of the above is applicable, “TO” is stored in the table while analyzing as follows. As mentioned above,
The contents of the non-executable statement and the conditions surrounding the non-executable statement,
Information such as the instruction to which it belongs, instructions before and after it, words directly related, and the like are sequentially analyzed from the read program asset information and stored in a non-executable sentence analysis table. Similarly, the sequence No. 0012 shown in 2-2 generated assets in FIG.
The extraction of non-executable sentences such as the comment 1 of No. 30 and the comment 2 of sequence No. 001350 and analysis of information on the surrounding environment are analyzed and stored in the non-executable sentence analysis table.

The non-executable sentence analysis table shown in FIG. 3 is a table of a central existence for verifying equivalence, and is analyzed and output by the non-executable sentence analyzing means.
Information such as instructions and words before and after is stored and used when verifying the equivalence between the original asset and the generated asset. Next, the non-executable statement group grasping means 21 performs the non-executable statement analysis table 3-1 of FIG. 3 and the non-executable statement analysis table 3 of FIG.
-2 is read, and as shown in FIG. 12-2, the contents of the non-executable statement, the line / intra-line division match, and the presence / absence of a non-executable statement in the command statement are expanded in the non-executable statement analysis table. , The sequence of the immediately preceding instruction, the word immediately after the non-executable statement in the instruction, and the word immediately before the non-executable statement in the next line, the group is determined. The non-executable sentence analysis table shown in FIG.
Output to 3-2. For example, sequence No00050
0 comment 2 and 000520 comment 3 and 00
In the arrangement of the comments 4 of 0550, the comments 2 and 3 are classified into lines / intra-lines, the presence or absence of a non-executable statement in the command statement,
Since the SEQ of the immediately preceding instruction is the same,
Comment 2 starts the non-executable statement, and comment 3 continues. Group numbers are group 2-1 for comment 2 and group 2 for comment 3.
-2. Next, when the comment 3 and the comment 4 are compared, it is determined that the groups are different due to the mismatch of the line / intra-line division and the mismatch of the SEQ of the immediately preceding instruction.
Since the comment 4 and the comment 5 can be determined to be in the same group as compared with the content of the comment 5 of 000560,
Is the start of a non-executable statement. The group number is group 3-1. Similarly, the group is determined by comparing the contents up to the comment 6 of the sequence No. 000570, and the start / continuation section and the group number of the non-executable statement are stored in the start / continuation section column and the group column, respectively.

The non-executable sentence group grasping means 21 performs a non-executable sentence analysis table of the original asset for each SECTION name and a non-executable sentence The analysis table 3-2 of FIG. 3 is physically and sequentially compared to determine whether the contents of both items are equal, and the result is compared with the non-executable statement analysis table comparison result 4 of FIG. "OK" or "NG" is output to the equivalence determination column of -1 / 4-2 / 4-3. For example, as shown in 4-3 in FIG. 4, when the appearance order of the comments 4, 5, and 6 changes between the original asset and the generated asset, if the physical order comparison is NG, that is, the equivalent It is judged that there is no sex. However, according to the present invention, those which are determined to be NG are compared with the next non-executable statement comparing means 4.
In step 1, there is a function of determining again whether the two are really different by checking again.

Next, as preliminary preparation of the requirement input means 31, the operator extracts in advance only specifications related to the non-executable statement from a generation type migration specification file (not shown), and judges the movement of the non-executable statement. Information is selected and extracted, and the items of the specification table are determined. In the requirement input means 31, for each item of the specification table, for each language specification,
The requirements in consideration of the transition specifications are defined for each of several patterns and input from the terminal device. It is stored in the specification table shown in FIG. The specification table is a table for determining the equivalence of the non-executable statement with high accuracy, and is a table including items set in advance for each language specification (see item description in FIG. 5), and is defined for each language.

The non-executable sentence comparing means 41 comprises a non-executable sentence analysis table comparison result input (FIG. 4), a specification table (FIG. 5), and a verification specification table (FIG. 6) for storing the comparison result. I have. The non-executable sentence comparison unit 41 stores, in the non-executable sentence analysis table comparison result, those in which NG is stored in the determination result, for example, 4-2 or 4-3 in FIG. Separately, the original asset and the generated asset are compared, and it is determined which pattern in the specification table is adopted, and the equivalence is determined by comparing whether or not the pattern content matches the pattern content. The specification table for verification of FIG. 6 stores the result of the pattern comparison, and stores the result of the final stage of the equivalence determination of the non-executable statement. As shown in the table relation diagrams of FIGS. 7 and 8, for example, in the table of the result of the physical order comparison of the group 2 in FIG.
At 0, since the contents of the non-executable statements of COBOL and YPS are the same in "comment 2", "O" is stored in the match column of the contents of the non-executable statements in the result table of the comparison by group 2 specifications. At this time, the content of the non-executable statement is such that COBOL is “comment 2” and YPS is “comment 2”.
Since they appear in the same order, such a state is regarded as “the output order matches”, and “印” is stored in the output order matching column of the result table of the comparison by group 2 specification. Also,
Since the word of the operation target 1 is also the same as “X1-DATA”, “O” is stored in the matching column of the operation target 1 of the result table of the comparison by specification of the group 2. Further, since the contents of the row / in-line division column of the result table of the comparison by group 2 specifications are "row",
Pattern 1 where the line / in-line division column of the specification table is "line"
Is adopted as the content of the equivalence determination of the non-executable statement, and is stored in the row of the content of the determination in the result table of the comparison by specification of the group 2. Then, the content of the row of the comment 2 on the table is compared with the content of the determination (pattern 1), and if all items match, a determination is made that the equivalence determination is OK. Next, in the result table of the physical order comparison of group 3 in FIG.
As shown in 000550 and 001390, COBO
This is a case in which the content “comment 4” of the non-executable statement contents of L and YPS is apart from each other. This is because the content of the non-executable statement is checked in the group number in the group column, that is, in the group of group 3. This is achieved by: That is, when it is checked whether or not the content “comment 4” of the non-executable statement of SEQ000550 exists in the non-executable statement of group 3, SEQ001
The content of the non-executable statement at 390 was “comment 4”.
Therefore, the equivalence between the non-executable statement “comment 4” of COBOL and the non-executable statement “comment 4” of YPS can be verified in the group of group 3. In each column of the result table of the comparison by specification of the group 3, since the content of the non-executable statement is the same in the "comment 4" in the matching column, "O" is stored. Since the match field of the previous instruction is the same in "MOVE", "O" is stored. Since the operation target 1 is the same in the matching column “Y1-DATA”, “O” is stored. The word match column immediately after the original side is the SEQ000 of the result table of the physical order comparison of group 3
Since the word column immediately after the non-executable statement in the instruction of 550 COBOL is "TO", "match with TO" is stored. The column for determining whether or not the end of the group is indicated by S in the physical order comparison result table of the group 3.
Since the start / continuation column of the non-executable sentence of the non-executable sentence comment 4 of EQ001390 is “continued” and the last non-executable sentence, it can be determined that the end of the group, so “o” is stored. In addition, “intra-line” in the row / intra-line division column of the result table of the group-specific comparison result of group 3 and “x” in the matching column with the immediately preceding word
And "○" in the judgment column as to whether the word immediately after the original side is "TO match" in the match column and the end of the group
As a result, the pattern 3 of the specification table is adopted as the judgment content, and stored in the row of the judgment content in the result table of the comparison for each group 3 in the specification. Then, when all the items match, as compared with the content of the line of the comment 4, the equivalence determination can verify the equivalence such as OK. The conditions for adopting pattern 2 are as follows:
When the row / in-line classification column of the result table of the comparison by group 3 specification is "in-line" and the preceding word is the "match" in the matching column,
The pattern 2 of the specification table is adopted as the judgment content, and is stored in the row of the judgment content in the result table of the comparison for each group 3 in the specification. The order of the non-executable statements is changed by the non-executable statement comparing means 41 in accordance with the format of each language specification. It has a function that can make a judgment.

FIG. 9, FIG. 10, FIG. 11, FIG.
FIGS. 14, 15 and 16 show one embodiment of the processing flow executed by the verification device 10 of the present invention. Next, the present invention will be described in detail according to this processing flow. Here, the generation type transition from the COBOL language to the YPS specification language will be described as an example. Further, the non-executable statement in the present embodiment targets only the commentary statement.

The process of FIG. 9 shows that the original asset (2-1 in FIG. 2) developed in the COBOL language is generated and transferred to the YPS specification language asset (2-2 in FIG. 2). ing. The non-executable statements in this example are “comment 1”, “comment 2”, and “comment 3”, which are commentary statements on the line, and “comment 4”, “comment 5”, and “comment 6”, which are commentary statements on in-line notes. .

When the verification apparatus 10 is started in accordance with the verification execution instruction, as shown in the processing flow of FIG. 10, first, in step 02, the COBOL original asset (2-1 in FIG. 2) is read. In step 03, only records having non-executable statements are extracted. The contents of the extracted record are stored in the non-executable sentence analysis table (3-1 in FIG. 3). The YPS language specification assets (2-2 in FIG. 2) are processed in the same manner, and the non-executable sentence analysis table (3 in FIG. 3) is processed.
-2) is completed.

Subsequently, in step 08 shown in FIG. 11, first, for the non-executable statement analysis table COBOL (3-1 in FIG. 3)
Is read, and in step 09, determination is made in units of SECTION, and record information is read until the next SECTION is changed. When the SECTION changes, a group determination process in the SECTION is performed in step 10. The details are shown in FIG. It should be noted that “-” in the figure corresponds to “-” indicating the comparison order of items on the non-executable sentence analysis table shown in FIG. 12-2 (1). First, each of the group number, the group branch number, and the line number (N) is set to 1 prior to the group determination processing. Is compared with the content of the non-executable statement between the line (N) and the next line (N + 1). The next determination is that the row (N) and the next row (N + 1)
Compare the contents of line / inline divisions between If the group does not match, it is determined that the group changes, and the start / continuation section stores the start if the group branch number is 1 and stores the continuation if the group branch number is other than 1. The group number is stored. The row number (N) and the group number are counted up. Conversely, the group number is reset to 1. For example, in FIG.
It is determined that the groups are different between the comment 0 and the comment 3 of 000550 and the comment 4. In the next determination, the presence / absence of a non-executable statement in the statement between the line (N) and the next line (N + 1) is compared. If this is not the case, we judge that the groups are different,
With the group up to the row as one group, the start / continuation section stores the start when the group branch number is 1, the continuation when the group branch number is other than 1, and stores the group number in the group. The row number (N) and the group number are counted up. Conversely, the group number is reset to 1. For example, sequence No. 00004
In comments 1 and 2 of 0 and 000500, the line /
Even if the in-line divisions match, the presence / absence of a non-executable statement in the statement does not match, so it is determined that the groups are different. The next determination is the SE of the immediately preceding instruction between the row (N) and the next row (N + 1).
Compare Q. The fact that the SEQ is different means that the statement is a non-executable statement belonging to another instruction, and that the group is different.
When the branch number is 1, the start is stored.
The group stores the group number. Also, the row number (N) and the group number are counted up, respectively, and the group branch number is reset to 1. For example, sequence No. 000500
In the comment 2 and the comment 3 of 000520, the SEQ of the immediately preceding instruction matches, and in this case, the group determination is left to the processing of. In the next determination, the content of the word immediately after the non-executable statement in the instruction on the line (N) is compared with the content of the word immediately before the non-executable statement in the instruction on the next line (N + 1). This is because all of them are the same in the determinations up to, so it is determined that there is a continuation as a group.
Then, it is determined whether or not non-executable statements are continuous. If they match, the non-executable statements are consecutive.
For the row, the start / continuation section stores the start if the branch number is 1, the continuation if it is other than 1, and the group stores the group number. However, here, only the row number is counted up, the group number is kept as it is, and the group branch number is counted up. In the case of non-match, non-executable statements are scattered in the instruction. Is the same as if Is compared with the continuous line comment / (2) in FIG.
This function is effective for determining the continuation of non-executable statements in a part that is not entangled with an instruction, as shown in an in-line comment. In this way, all records on the non-executable statement analysis table are determined, and the result is stored in the corresponding column.

When one table, for example, 3-1 in FIG. 3 has been judged for all cases, the group number, group branch number and line number are reset in step 11, and the next table in FIG.
2 is similarly processed from step 8. Step 12
Then, the non-executable statement analysis table for which the group has been determined (see 3-1 in FIG. 3)
And 3-2) until the group changes, GROUP
And YPS, and stores them in correspondence with the non-executable sentence analysis table comparison results (4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 in FIG. 4). Step 13 forms the logic for continuing the processing of step 12 until the group changes. When a record of a non-executable statement in one group unit is read, in step 14, a non-executable statement analysis table comparison result input (FIG. 4) is used for each item constituting the record in a pair of COBOL and YPS. It is checked whether the contents match, and if all match, “OK” is inserted in the corresponding equivalence judgment column of the table (FIG. 4). If there is at least one item that does not match, "N
G ”is inserted. For example, in 4-1 of FIG. 4, when the non-executable sentence comment 1 is compared for COBOL and for YPS, all items match, so "OK" is inserted in the equivalence determination column. Have been. Also, 4-2 in FIG.
Then, about non-executable statement comment 2 and comment 3, CO
When comparing BOL and YPS, the contents of the non-executable statement presence / absence column in the command statement, the word field immediately before the non-executable statement in the command statement, and the word field immediately after the non-executable statement in the command statement do not match. , "NG" is inserted in the equivalence determination column. That is, when it is determined that the contents do not match in the non-executable statement presence / absence column in the command statement, the content check of the next item is bypassed, and “NG” is inserted in the equivalence determination column. In the case of 4-3 in FIG. 4, the order of appearance of the non-executable statements after generation is different from the original according to the language specification. In this case, the non-executable statements themselves do not match, and "NG" is displayed in the equivalence determination column. Is inserted.

The non-executable sentence analysis table comparison result table shown in FIG. 4 is a table composed of pairs of original assets and generated assets in groups. When the physical order comparison in the above step 14 is completed, the one for which the equivalence determination is “OK” is
Here, the determination is completed, and the information of the comparison result is passed to the display means of step 34 described later. "NG"
Further processing of the next equivalence determination continues.

In step 18, in step 14, "N
With respect to the non-executable sentence determined as “G”, whether the sentence is really different is determined again from another angle. That is, the items to be compared are compared using the items in the specification table shown in FIG. The reason is that at the stage when the physical order comparison is completed, "N
"G" is a difference in the generation type migration specification of the target language, and it is difficult to determine equivalence by a simple comparison. This is because it is necessary to make a determination. So, first, C
The non-executable statement of OBOL and the non-executable statement of YPS are compared in the items of the specification table (FIG. 5). Then, the comparison result is stored in the specification table for verification (FIG. 6). For example, in step 19 of FIG. 12, the COBOL and YPS of the group 2 including the non-executable statement analysis table comparison result of 4-2 in FIG.
Are compared with each other to check whether the line / intra-line division matches. In this case, since there is a match in "row", "row" is stored in the row / in-line division column of the verification specification table as shown in 6-1 of FIG. Similarly, since the comment 3 of the group 2 also matches in the “line”, the “line” is stored in the line / in-line division column of the specification table for verification. In addition, FIG.
As for the comment 4, the comment 5, and the comment 6 of the group 3 as shown in FIG. 3, since they match in "in-line", "in-line" is stored in the line / in-line classification column of the verification specification table.
Subsequently, in step 20, the instruction itself to which the non-executable statement to be verified belongs is stored in the instruction column of the specification table for verification (FIG. 6). In step 21, the non-executable statements in Group 2 of 4-2 containing the non-executable statement analysis table comparison result in FIG. 4 are compared for COBOL and for YPS to determine whether or not the contents match. Here, since the comment 2 and the comment 3 match each other, the content of the specification table for verification (FIG. 6) stores “O” in the matching column. If they do not match, "x" is stored in the matching column.

Next, in step 22, the contents of the line / in-line division column of 4-2 (group 2) and 4-3 (group 3) containing the comparison result of the non-executable statement analysis table in FIG. It is checked whether or not only those stored as “row”, that is, only the group 2 of 4-2 in FIG. 4 have the same output order. 4- of FIG.
In FIG. 6, since the non-executable statements in the order of "comment 2", "comment 2", "comment 3", and "comment 3" match in the order of the non-executable statements in COBOL and YPS, FIG. “O” is stored in the column where the output order of the comparison result by specification of the group 2 of 6-1 matches. In the case of "inline" or "x", the check is bypassed because the order of non-executable statements on the generated asset has been changed. For example, COB
In the example of the transition from the OL asset to the YPS asset, FIG.
As you can see in 4-3 of above, due to differences in language specifications / grammar,
This is because the position of the comment 4 may be reversed.

In steps 23 and 24, it is checked whether the immediately preceding instruction matches and whether the operation target 1 matches, and if they match, each of the verification specification tables (FIG. 6) is checked. "O" is stored in the corresponding field. For example, the instruction immediately before 4-2 in FIG.
Since the same is applied to “E”, the instruction immediately before the specification table for verification (6-1 in FIG. 6) stores “O” in the matching column. Also, since the word of the operation target 1 is the same in “X1-DATA”, similarly, the operation target 1 of 6-1 in FIG.
The seal is stored.

Subsequently, in step 25, the contents of the line / inline division column of 4-2 or 4-3 containing the comparison result of the non-executable sentence analysis table in FIG. The original asset side (C
Check if the word immediately after OBOL) matches "TO" and if it is the end of the group. That is, a check is performed on the group of the group 3 of the comment 4/5/6 of 4-3 in FIG. It should be noted that the check information here is valuable information for the determination process of the non-executable sentence comparing unit 41 described later. When the content of the line / in-line classification column is “line”, the check is bypassed. For example, 4 in FIG.
This is because the non-executable statements of the group 2 of -2 appear in the same order, and the equivalence verification is completed up to step 24. On the other hand, the non-executable statements in group 3 of 4-3 in FIG.
In other words, it is necessary to collect information for checking the context of non-executable statements and determining equivalence. In the present invention, advanced equivalence verification is realized by verifying the content of the non-executable statement itself on the original asset side and the generated asset side and the environment information surrounding the non-executable statement on a group basis. .

In the next step 28, the terminal device is used as a program resource requirement input in advance so that a difference between non-executable statements caused by the language specification / grammar after the transition to the generation type can be appropriately determined. Input and store the definition contents as a specification table of FIG. For example, C
As shown in the specification table of FIG. 5, the requirement definition in the case of the generation type transition from the OBOL asset to the YPS asset is 3
Requirements are defined in three patterns. Pattern 1
Is a pattern in which the line / in-line division is “line” and a non-executable statement exists alone. In this case, the content of the non-executable statement matches, the output order of the non-executable statement matches, the instruction immediately before the non-executable statement matches, and the operation target 1 of the instruction to which the non-executable statement belongs
Is a definition of the meaning of determining that if the four contents of the match match, it is determined that there is equivalence. Pattern 2 is a pattern in which the line / in-line division is “in-line” and a non-executable statement exists in the middle of a certain instruction. Here, the certain command defines a command on the original asset side, specifically, a MOVE command. In the case of the pattern 2, if the contents of the non-executable statement match, the immediately preceding instruction matches, the operand 1 matches, and the word immediately before the non-executable statement matches, the equivalence is equal. This is the definition of the meaning to determine that there is. The pattern 3 is similar to the pattern 2 in that the contents of the non-executable statement match, the immediately preceding instruction matches, and the operation target 1 matches. 3
Further, the word immediately before the non-executable statement does not match, and the word immediately after the non-executable statement on the original side (in this example, “matches with“ TO ”) is matched. If the latter non-executable statement is the end of the group, it is defined by adding a condition that it is determined that there is equivalence.

Next, in step 29, the entire specification table (FIG. 5) is read. In step 30, one record of the non-executable statement comparison result in the verification specification table (6-1 and 6-2 in FIG. 6) is read. Read in units and in step 31
According to the content of the line / intra-line division, if the content is "line", the pattern 1 is adopted as the content of the equivalence determination, and the row of the determination content in the verification specification table (6-1 in FIG. 6) is used. , The requirement definition information of pattern 1 is stored. For example,
Since the comment / comment 3 has a line / line division of “line”, it is possible to determine whether or not there is equivalence by verifying whether or not it matches the contents of the pattern 1. In terms of results,
Since the contents match the pattern 1, the comments 2 and 3 are "OK" in the equivalence determination.

If it is determined in step 31 that the content of the line / in-line division is "in line" or "x", in step 36,
If the instruction to which the instruction belongs is MOVE and the word immediately before the non-executable statement matches in step 37, pattern 2 is adopted as the content of the equivalence determination, and the pattern 2 in the verification specification table (6-2 in FIG. 6) is used. The requirement definition information of the pattern 2 is stored in the line of the judgment content. For example, since the comment 5 and the comment 6 correspond to the pattern 2, the presence or absence of equivalence can be determined by verifying whether or not the content of the pattern 2 matches. As a result, since the contents match the pattern 2 in all items, the comments 5 and 6 are "OK" in the equivalence determination.

In step 37, if the word field immediately before the non-executable statement does not match and the word field immediately after the original side matches (matches TO), pattern 3 is adopted as the content of the equivalence determination. In the verification specification table (6-2 in FIG. 6), the requirement definition information of the pattern 3 is stored in the row of the determination content.
For example, since the comment 4 corresponds to the pattern 3, the presence or absence of equivalence can be determined by verifying whether or not the comment 4 matches the content of the pattern 3. As a result, since the content matches pattern 3 in all items, comment 4 is “OK” in the equivalence determination. As in Pattern 3, even when the environment such as the order of appearance of non-executable sentences due to different language specifications / grammars differs, the verification device of the present invention realizes high-quality equivalence verification.

In step 42, the non-executable sentence analysis table comparison result input (4-1 in FIG. 4) and the verification specification table (6-1 and 6-2 in FIG. 6) are read, and a screen (not shown) or a printer Outputs the verification result of the non-executable statement to In this way, the equivalence checking of non-executable statements in the verification of the identity of the original asset and the generated / migrated asset is performed in consideration of each statement of the huge program You need to build your logic.
Therefore, the verification device 10 uses the language specification /
Define the requirements of the migration specification due to differences in grammar, and verify the equivalence of the original assets and the generated migration assets in groups, and perform no Even if a statement exists in an instruction, sufficient equivalence checking can be performed. As a result, a highly accurate equivalence checking operation is automatically performed. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the illustrated embodiments, the present invention is not limited thereto. For example, in the embodiment, the present invention has been described in accordance with the application example of the verification conscious of the generation type transition from the COBOL asset to the YPS asset. However, the present invention is not limited to the language specification / grammar, but may be applied to any application. This is applied to verification work related to the transfer of programs and control statements.

Also, in this example, an example has been described in which the pre- and post-migration programs are compared to verify whether the non-executable statements are equivalent for the migrated program assets. Is characterized by the fact that even if the description position is changed by comparison one by one, it will be equivalent if it conforms to the generation specification. It can be used even if it is generated. That is, by defining in advance the generation specification which is a feature of the present invention,
When the program is generated, the non-executable statement is converted in accordance with the defined specification, and it is possible to guarantee the equivalence and output it to a position desired by the user of the migration destination program.

[0033]

As described above, according to the present invention, the unique verification device does not consider the logic of a complex program asset, and does not require a change in the content of the generated asset due to a difference in language specification / grammar. Since it can be defined in a table format as several patterns, it has a function to automatically extract non-executable statements in program assets and verify the equivalence of original assets and generated assets in grouping by group. , Advanced equivalence verification processing is possible. By making full use of these functions, the equivalence verification for non-executable statements can be automated.
Verification of the equivalence between the original asset and the generated asset can be performed in a short period of time with high quality.

[Brief description of the drawings]

FIG. 1 is a system configuration diagram of the present invention.

FIG. 2 is an example of a program resource for verifying equivalence of non-executable statements applied in an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 3 is an embodiment of a non-executable sentence analysis table according to a function of the present invention.

FIG. 4 shows an embodiment of a function included in the present invention, in which a physical order comparison result of a non-executable statement analysis table is entered.

FIG. 5 is an embodiment of a specification table according to functions provided by the present invention.

FIG. 6 is an example of a comparison result for each specification requirement in a group of verification specification tables according to a function of the present invention.

FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram (part 1) showing the inter-relationship between tables according to the function of the present invention.

FIG. 8 is an explanatory diagram (part 2) illustrating the inter-relationship between tables according to the function of the present invention.

FIG. 9 is an embodiment (part 1) of a migration processing flowchart for generating input data of the verification device of the present invention.

FIG. 10 is an embodiment (part 2) of a processing flowchart executed by the verification device of the present invention.

FIG. 11 is an embodiment (part 3) of a processing flowchart executed by the verification device of the present invention.

FIG. 12A is an explanatory diagram of one embodiment of a criterion for group judgment executed by the verification device of the present invention. FIG. 6B is a detailed explanatory diagram (part 1) of the group determination process executed by the verification device of the present invention. FIG. 3C is a detailed explanatory diagram (part 2) of the group determination process executed by the verification device of the present invention.

FIG. 13 is an example (part 4) of a processing flowchart executed by the verification device of the present invention.

FIG. 14 is an example (part 5) of a processing flowchart executed by the verification device of the present invention.

FIG. 15 is an embodiment (part 6) of a processing flowchart executed by the verification device of the present invention.

FIG. 16 is an example (part 7) of a processing flowchart executed by the verification device of the present invention;

FIG. 17 is an embodiment (part 8) of a processing flowchart executed by the verification device of the present invention.

[Explanation of symbols]

 11 Non-executable sentence analyzing means 12 Input means for A language 13 Input means for B language 14 Original assets 15 Generated assets 21 Non-executable sentence group grasp means 31 Requirement input means 41 Non-executable sentence comparison means 51 Display means 61 Non-executable Sentence analysis table 71 Specification table 81 Specification table for verification

Claims (5)

[Claims] An equivalence checking apparatus for verifying whether non-executable statements included in a plurality of programs generated according to a program transition are equivalent, comprises an executable statement of one instruction and a non-executable statement for each program. Specification definition means for defining a position of a non-executable statement arranged in the same group for a group to be executed; non-executable statement analyzing means for analyzing the positions of an executable statement and a non-executable statement for programs before and after the migration; A plurality of executable statements and non-executable statements included in the group are compared between a plurality of programs before and after migration analyzed by the non-executable statement analyzing unit, and a non-executable statement is located at a position defined by the specification definition unit. An equivalence verification apparatus characterized in that the equivalence verification apparatus comprises a group grasping means for judging that the non-executable statements of the programs before and after the transition are equivalent. 2. The equivalence checking apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said specification definition means defines a position of a non-executable statement arranged in the same group in association with contents of preceding and following executable statements. apparatus. 3. An equivalence checking apparatus for verifying whether non-executable statements included in a plurality of programs generated according to a transfer of a program are equivalent. Specification definition means for defining a description specification of a non-executable statement added to a program, non-executable statement analyzing means for analyzing the contents and positions of an executable statement and a non-executable statement with respect to a program before and after migration, and the non-executable statement analyzing means Comparing the plurality of programs before and after the analysis analyzed in the above, and determining that the non-executable statements of the programs before and after the migration are equivalent if the program conforms to the description specification defined by the specification definition means. Equivalence verification device. 4. A program asset conversion device for converting a program language into another program language, wherein, for a program before and after conversion, a group consisting of an executable statement and a non-executable statement of one instruction, A specification defining means for defining a position is provided.When a program to be converted is inputted, the program refers to the contents defined by the specification defining means, converts the program into another program language, and converts the program to a position defined by the specification defining means. A program asset conversion device for outputting a non-executable statement. 5. An equivalence checking apparatus for verifying whether non-executable statements included in a plurality of programs generated in accordance with a transition of a program are equivalent, comprising an executable statement of one instruction and a non-executable statement for each program. Specification definition means for defining the position of non-executable statements placed in the same group for a group to be executed, and non-executable statement analysis means for analyzing the contents and positions of executable statements and non-executable statements for programs before and after migration. Comparing a plurality of executable statements and non-executable statements included in the group between a plurality of programs before and after migration analyzed by the non-executable statement analyzing means, and a non-executable statement at a position defined by the specification defining means; In some cases, the program causes a computer to execute a group comprehension means for judging that non-executable statements of programs before and after migration are equivalent. Beam storage medium.