JP4688580B2 - Apparatus for determining consistency of program execution procedure, method and program thereof - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a program execution procedure for a specific action for a specific object, even if it is impossible to actually execute the program execution procedure, The present invention relates to a technique for detecting that consistency is lost due to a wrong program execution procedure by using a sequence of actions to be applied to an object.

  In the work of designing the program execution procedure, there is a drawback that it is impossible to know the contradiction included in the design document of the execution procedure until the program can actually be executed. For this reason, implementation is performed after the execution procedure is designed, and the contradiction is discovered only when it can be actually executed, which leads to a situation where it is necessary to re-execute from design to implementation of the execution procedure. Loss and correction work had occurred.

Conventionally, in order to overcome this drawback, a technology that virtually creates a mechanism that provides limited operations instead of actual operations as a simulator, and uses this to perform virtual execution to perform early verification (For example, refer to Patent Document 1).
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 9-50388 (Japanese Patent Application No. 7-202376)

  However, since the relationship between the data to be executed is not always clear at the initial stage of development, it is impossible to provide a mechanism for simulating the virtual operation as described above, and verification is impossible. There was a point.

  In view of the above-described problems, the present invention provides an object at an early stage of development without constructing on a computer a mechanism for actually operating an execution target between a program execution procedure and execution targets having a relationship with each other. The purpose is to determine the consistency of the relationship between the program execution procedure and the execution target even in an unclear state.

  FIG. 1 shows the configuration of a program execution procedure consistency determination apparatus according to the present invention. The apparatus according to the present invention includes an execution procedure storage unit 1, an execution target database 2, an execution procedure input unit 3, and execution target data. The input unit 4 includes an execution procedure execution possibility determination unit 5, an execution procedure influence reflection unit 6, a user notification unit 7, and a repetitive operation control unit 8.

  The execution procedure storage unit 1 stores a program execution procedure that has a specific purpose and is arranged in the order in which two or more execution procedures including an execution target and an action given to the execution target are executed.

  The execution target database 2 includes a target and a state of each execution procedure, a condition indicating a state that the target should have in order to execute the execution procedure, a state to be taken when the execution procedure is executed, a certain target The relationship between the objects that indicates what state the other objects will change when the state of the object changes, in particular, the type of object and the objects of the originating side and the destination side, which can be taken according to the type of object The relationship between the objects whose relationship is determined and all the relationships connected to the AND term are combined by an AND term that has the effect of changing the relationship connected from the AND term to that state when trying to change the destination target to the same state. The relationship between the OR term is changed to the state when the relationship between the at least two objects and at least one relationship connected to the OR term tries to change the target on the destination side to a specific state. Storing execution target data consisting of a relationship between at least two objects linked by OR terms with action.

  The execution procedure input unit 3 inputs and stores the program execution procedure in the execution procedure storage unit 1. The execution target data input unit 4 inputs and stores the execution target data in the execution target database 2.

  The execution procedure feasibility determination unit 5 confirms whether or not the target of the execution procedure satisfies the condition determined by the execution procedure with reference to the execution target database 2 when the execution procedure is executed. If it is not satisfied, it is determined that execution is not possible.

  The execution procedure influence reflection unit 6 reflects the change in the state of the target of the execution procedure and the change in the state of another related target in accordance with the execution of the executable execution procedure, that is, the execution target database 2. Rewrite.

  The user notification unit 7 notifies the user of the consistency determination result.

  The repetitive operation control unit 8 reads one execution procedure of the program execution procedure from the execution procedure storage unit 1 and sends the read execution procedure to the execution procedure executable determination unit 5 to determine whether or not it can be executed. If possible, the change in the target state associated with the execution of the execution procedure is sent to the execution procedure influence reflection unit 6 to rewrite the execution target database 2, and this is repeated from the beginning to the end of the sequence of execution procedures to execute all executions. If the procedure can be executed, the user is notified of consistency via the user notification unit 7. If the execution procedure sent to the execution procedure execution determination unit 5 cannot be executed, the user notification unit 7 is used at that time. To notify the user that there is no consistency.

  FIG. 2 shows the flow of the method for determining the consistency of the program execution procedure according to the present invention. Hereinafter, the determination of the consistency of the program execution procedure according to the present invention will be described with reference to FIGS.

  In the above configuration, the program execution procedure is input from the execution procedure input unit 3 and stored in the execution procedure storage unit 1 (s1). The execution target data is input from the execution target data input unit 4 and stored in the execution target database (s2).

  Next, the repetitive operation control unit 8 reads one execution procedure included in the program execution procedure from the execution procedure storage unit 1 from its head and sends it to the execution procedure execution feasibility determination unit 5 (s3). The execution procedure feasibility determination unit 5 acquires the state of the target of the execution procedure from the execution target database 2 and compares it with the condition that the target should have, which is determined by the action that the execution procedure gives to the target. If it is satisfied, it is determined that it can be executed. If it is not satisfied, it is determined that it cannot be executed, and the result is repeatedly returned to the operation control unit 8 (s4).

  Here, when it is determined that execution is possible (s5), the repetitive motion control unit 8 sends the state change of the target due to the action that the execution procedure gives to the target to the execution procedure influence reflecting unit 6, and the state change of the target At the same time, based on the relationship between the objects registered in advance, the state of another object that changes due to the state change of the object is reflected on the execution object database 2, that is, the execution object database 2 is rewritten (s6).

  The repetitive operation control unit 8 repeats the above-described operation from the beginning to the end of the sequence of execution procedures (s7), and if all the execution procedures can be executed, the user confirms that there is consistency via the user notification unit 7. And finishes (s8).

  On the other hand, when it is determined that the execution is impossible (s5), the repetitive operation control unit 8 notifies the user of the execution procedure and the target determined to be unexecutable via the user notification unit 7, and ends (s9). .

  The execution procedure input unit 3 and the execution target data input unit 4 described above are separated into two components from the viewpoint of functionality, but this does not mean that two physical input units are required. . In addition to input directly from an input device such as a keyboard, the input here may be read from a storage medium or input from another device via a communication line. In addition, the input unit includes a storage medium, a communication line, and an interface for them in addition to the input device.

  Further, the present invention installs a program for realizing the functions shown in the configuration diagram of FIG. 1 or a program having the procedure shown in the flowchart of FIG. 2 via a storage medium or a communication line in a known computer. Can also be realized.

  According to the present invention, the relationship between the program execution procedure and the execution target is not established on the computer between the execution target having a relation with the program execution procedure without actually constructing a mechanism on the computer. Can be determined.

  Hereinafter, details of the above-described apparatus and method of the present invention will be described with specific examples.

  FIG. 3 shows an example of the types of execution procedures that can be input from the execution procedure input unit 3. Here, it is shown that two procedures of “acquire” and “set” can be input.

  FIG. 4 shows an example of a program execution procedure having a specific purpose, which is input by the execution procedure input unit 3 and stored in the execution procedure storage unit and configured by the procedure shown in FIG.

  FIG. 5 shows the configuration of the execution target that is the target of the example of FIG. Here, using the user ID of the target customer, the address is extracted from the customer database (4-1), the postal code is acquired from the address using the postal code database (4-2), and the label printing mechanism (4-3). The label is printed by inputting the address and the postal code to the mail, the printed address label number is obtained, and the address label number and the user ID are input to the shipping device (4-4) to attach the address label. It shows the procedure to ship.

  FIG. 6 shows an example of the types of execution targets accumulated in the execution target database. Two types of “acquired items” and “set items” were defined as target items. FIG. 7 shows an example of possible states determined by the type of object defined in FIG.

FIG. 8 shows the possible relationships between the objects depending on the object. For example, (7-1) is “get” from the acquisition item to the setting item. It shows that the relationship "handle" can be taken. Here, the relationship has occurred, the acquired item side in (7-1) is the “originating side” of the relationship, and the setting item side in (7-1) is the “destination side” of the relationship. Define.

FIG. 9 is an example in which the relationship between the objects defined as shown in FIG. 8 is defined with respect to the action of changing the destination object when the originating object changes to a specific state. Show. For example, the third line is “get” defined in (7-1) of FIG. The relationship “handle” indicates that when the originating side, which is the acquisition item, has a state of “acquired”, the destination, which is the setting item, is changed to “ settable ”.

  FIG. 10 shows an example of a state that the execution target should have in order to execute the execution procedure. For example, the first line indicates that the target must be “settable” in order to execute the execution procedure “set”, and the second line “execute” the execution procedure. Indicates that the target must be “acquirable” in order to execute.

  FIG. 11 shows a state where the execution target is taken by the execution procedure. For example, the first line indicates that the target is changed to “already set” by executing the execution procedure “set”.

  12 and 13 show an example in which the execution target shown in FIG. 5 is expressed as data on the execution target database using the relationship and AND term shown in FIG.

  In FIG. 12, a rectangular frame represents an execution target, a white rectangular frame indicates a setting item, and a black (gray hatched) rectangular frame indicates an acquisition item. The arrows between the execution targets indicate the relationship between the targets, the side on which the arrow appears indicates the “originating side” of the relationship, and the side on which the arrow is directed indicates the “destination” of the relationship.

For example, the arrow shown in (11-1) indicates “get user ID” from “target customer user ID” to “getting device user ID” shown in FIG. This means that there is a “handle” relationship. This means that when the acquisition item “user ID of the target customer” changes to “acquired”, the setting item “user ID of the shipping device” changes to “settable”, ie, “target customer” It is shown that “user ID of shipping device” can be set by acquiring “user ID of“.

  FIG. 14 shows that the first execution procedure is taken out from the execution procedure storage unit 1 and is determined to be “executable” by the execution procedure execution determination unit 5. Here, since the “user ID of the target customer” is in a state of “acquisable”, the execution procedure of “acquire” can be performed on the “user ID of the target customer”.

  FIG. 15 shows a case where the execution procedure is determined to be unexecutable by the execution procedure executable determination unit 5. Here, since the “user ID of the target customer” is in a state of “unacquirable”, it is impossible to perform the execution procedure of “acquire” on the “user ID of the target customer”. .

  In FIG. 16, the execution procedure influence reflecting unit 6 reflects the change in the state of the execution target caused by the execution of the execution procedure determined to be executable by the execution procedure executable determination unit 5 on the execution target database 2. The results are shown. Here, as a result of executing the execution procedure “acquire” for “user ID of target customer”, the state has changed to “acquired”.

FIG. 17 shows an example in which the execution procedure influence reflection unit 6 reflects the state change of another execution target caused by the state change of the execution target. Here, as a result of changing the concept of “target customer user ID” to “acquired” as shown in FIG. 16 , for example, “get customer user ID 1D” and “customer database user ID” The relationship “handle” indicates that “user ID of customer database” has changed from “not settable” to “settable”. As a result, the relationship between the execution targets that the “customer database user ID” can be set when the “target customer user ID” is acquired is reflected on the execution target database 2.

  In FIG. 18, the above procedure is repeated for all execution procedures stored in the execution procedure storage unit 1, and it is determined that all the execution procedures can be executed. Shows the case of notification.

  FIG. 19 shows a case where the execution procedure that has been attempted to be executed and the execution target are notified to the user using the user notification unit 7 because the execution procedure is determined to be unexecutable by the execution procedure executable determination unit 5. ing. Here, the execution procedure of “setting” is attempted for “postal code of the label printing mechanism”, but this execution procedure is executed because “postal code of the label printing mechanism” is in a state of “cannot be set”. Indicates that it is impossible. This indicates that an error occurs because, for example, the postal code to be set has not yet been acquired when attempting to set the postal code in the label printing mechanism in the current execution procedure.

  20 to 30 show examples of respective series of changes when the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure shown in FIG. 4 and the execution target data shown in FIGS. 12 and 13 is determined according to the present invention. Indicates. In each figure, each execution procedure in the execution procedure storage unit 1 is shown on the left side, and each execution target data in the execution target database 2 is shown on the right side.

FIG. 20 shows a state at the start of execution, and only the “user ID of the target customer” can be acquired. Here, the operation of “obtaining” “target customer user ID” of item number 1 is determined. First, from FIG. 10, “acquire” needs to be in an “acquisable” state, but FIG. 20 shows that this is satisfied. Next, as a result of executing “Acquire” from FIG. 11, it is understood that the target changes to “Acquired”. Next, due to the relationship of 11-1 on FIGS. In the case of “handle”, as shown in FIG. 9, the callee side is changed to “settable” when the caller side is “acquired”. For this reason, the “user ID of the shipping device” that is the destination of the relationship 11-1 changes to “settable”. Similarly, the “customer database user ID” changes to “settable” due to the relationship of 11-2. Therefore, each object changes to the state shown on the right side of FIG.

  Next, FIG. 22 shows the result of the same determination for “setting” “customer database user ID” as the second execution procedure. Thereafter, the same operation is repeated until FIG. 29, and as a result of determining “setting” the “user ID of the sending device” which is the last execution procedure in FIG. 29, FIG. 30 shows a state where all execution procedures are completed. At this time, it can be said that the execution procedure is consistent with the execution target data.

  Next, an example is shown in which it is determined that consistency has been lost by deleting a specific target.

  FIG. 31 shows a state where there is no target label printing mechanism for the work of “setting” “address of label printing mechanism” which is the sixth execution procedure. This indicates a lack of execution target data in the execution target database 2 and indicates that the execution procedure and the execution target data are not consistent.

  Next, an example of determining that consistency has been lost by deleting a specific execution procedure will be described.

  FIG. 32 and FIG. 33 show an example of determining that the consistency is lost as a result of deleting the execution procedure of “setting” the sixth “address of label printing mechanism”. In FIG. 32, as a result of deleting the sixth execution procedure, “setting the postal code of the label printing mechanism”, which is the seventh execution procedure after the fifth execution procedure, is performed. Indicates that it did not occur. FIG. 33 shows a state where the target is “unacquirable” when “acquired” is the eighth execution procedure “address label number of label printing mechanism”. As a result, it is determined that the consistency is lost as a result of deleting the procedure of “setting” the sixth “address of the label printing mechanism”.

  Next, an example is shown in which it is determined that consistency has been lost by deleting the relationship between specific objects.

  FIGS. 34 and 35 show an example in which the relationship from “Zip code of the zip code database” to “Zip code of the label printing mechanism” of 11-7 is deleted. FIG. 36 shows the state of the result of obtaining “postal code in the postal code database” in FIG. 24. However, since the above relationship is deleted, the “postal code of the label printing mechanism” is “unsettable” unlike FIG. "

  The conditions are met when setting the “address of the label printing mechanism” in FIG. 36, but when setting the “zip code of the label printing mechanism” in FIG. This indicates that an inconsistency has been detected. As a result, in FIG. 34 and FIG. 35, it is determined that the consistency has been lost as a result of deleting the relationship from “zip code in the zip code database” to “zip code in the label printing mechanism” in 11-7.

Functional block diagram of consistency determination device for program execution procedure of the present invention The flowchart of the consistency determination method of the program execution procedure of this invention Explanatory diagram showing examples of types of execution procedure that can be entered Explanatory drawing showing an example of program execution procedure Explanatory drawing which shows the structure of the execution object corresponding to the program execution procedure of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of the kind of execution object accumulate | stored in execution object database Explanatory drawing which shows the example of the state which can be decided by the kind of object of FIG. Explanatory diagram showing the relationship that can be taken between objects according to the object Explanatory drawing which shows the example which defined about the effect | action of what kind of state a destination side object is changed when the origin side object changes to a specific state Explanatory drawing which shows the example of the state which an execution target should have for execution procedure execution Explanatory drawing which shows the state that the execution target will be taken by the execution procedure FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram showing an example in which the execution target shown in FIG. 5 is expressed as data on the execution target database using the relationship and AND term shown in FIG. FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram showing an example in which the execution target shown in FIG. 5 is expressed as data on the execution target database using the relationship and AND term shown in FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the execution procedure when it is determined that execution is possible and the state of the target Explanatory drawing which shows the execution procedure when it is determined that execution is impossible, and the state of the target Explanatory drawing which shows the state change of the execution target caused by execution of the execution procedure Explanatory drawing which shows the state change of the other execution object caused by execution of an execution procedure Explanatory drawing which shows the example of the notification to the user when there is consistency Explanatory drawing which shows the example of the notification to the user when there is no consistency Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure of FIG. 4, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure of FIG. 4, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure of FIG. 4, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure of FIG. 4, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure of FIG. 4, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure of FIG. 4, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure of FIG. 4, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure of FIG. 4, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure of FIG. 4, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure of FIG. 4, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship between the program execution procedure of FIG. 4, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship of the program execution procedure of FIG. 4 and the execution target data of FIG. 13 from which the specific target was deleted Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship of the program execution procedure of FIG. 4 from which the specific execution procedure was deleted, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship of the program execution procedure of FIG. 4 from which the specific execution procedure was deleted, and the execution object data of FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example which deleted the relationship between specific objects in FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example which deleted the relationship between specific objects in FIG. Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship with the execution target data of FIG. 13 from which the program execution procedure of FIG. 4 and the relationship between specific objects were deleted Explanatory drawing which shows the example of each change at the time of determining the consistency of the dynamic relationship with the execution target data of FIG. 13 from which the program execution procedure of FIG. 4 and the relationship between specific objects were deleted

Explanation of symbols

  1: execution procedure storage unit, 2: execution target database, 3: execution procedure input unit, 4: execution target data input unit, 5: execution procedure execution possibility determination unit, 6: execution procedure influence reflection unit, 7: user notification unit , 8: Repeating operation control unit.

Claims (3)

An apparatus for determining the consistency of a program execution procedure,
An execution procedure storage unit that stores a program execution procedure that has a specific purpose and that is arranged in the order in which two or more execution procedures including an execution target and an action given to the execution target are executed;
The target and status of each execution procedure, the conditions that indicate the status that the target should have in order to execute the execution procedure, the status that the target will take when the execution procedure is executed, and the status of a target changes An execution target database that accumulates execution target data including a relationship between the objects that indicates what state the other target changes to,
An execution procedure input unit for storing the program execution procedure in the execution procedure storage unit;
An execution target data input unit for inputting and storing the execution target data in an execution target database;
When executing a certain execution procedure, check whether the target of the execution procedure satisfies the condition of the state determined by the execution procedure with reference to the execution target database. An execution procedure execution determination unit that determines that execution is not possible,
The target of the execution procedure that changes due to the change in the target state of the execution procedure based on the relationship between the targets accumulated in the execution target database along with the change in the target state of the execution procedure accompanying the execution of the executable execution procedure and execution procedure effects reflecting unit to reflect the execution target database changes in other target condition associated with,
A user notification unit for notifying the user of the consistency determination result;
One execution procedure of the program execution procedure is read from the execution procedure storage unit, and the read execution procedure is sent to the execution procedure executable determination unit to determine whether or not it can be executed. Is sent to the execution procedure effect reflection unit to rewrite the execution target database, and this is repeated from the beginning to the end of the execution procedure column. A repetitive operation control unit that notifies the user that there is consistency and notifies the user that there is no consistency via the user notification unit at that time if the execution procedure sent to the execution procedure executable determination unit is not executable An apparatus for determining consistency of a program execution procedure, comprising: A method for determining the consistency of a program execution procedure using a computer,
The computer
An execution procedure accumulating unit that accumulates a program execution procedure that has a specific purpose and that is arranged in the order in which two or more procedures including an execution target and an action given to the execution target are executed;
The target and status of each execution procedure, the conditions that indicate the status that the target should have in order to execute the execution procedure, the status that the target will take when the execution procedure is executed, and the status of a target changes And an execution target database for storing execution target data including a relationship between the objects representing what state the other target changes to,
Accumulating the input program execution procedure in the execution procedure storage unit,
Accumulating the input execution target data in an execution target database;
One execution procedure of the program execution procedure is read from the execution procedure storage unit, and whether or not the execution procedure target satisfies the condition of the state determined by the execution procedure when the read execution procedure is executed is stored in the execution target database. Refer to and confirm, if satisfied, determine that execution is possible, otherwise, determine that execution is not possible,
If execution is possible, the target of the execution procedure that changes due to the change in the target state of the execution procedure, based on the relationship between the targets accumulated in the execution target database, along with the change of the target state accompanying the execution of the execution procedure Reflect the change in the status of other related targets in the execution target database, repeat this from the beginning to the end of the execution procedure column, and notify the user that there is consistency if all execution procedures can be executed,
A program execution procedure consistency determination method characterized by notifying the user of inconsistency via a user notification unit at that time if execution is impossible. An execution procedure accumulating unit that accumulates a program execution procedure that has a specific purpose and that is arranged in the order in which two or more procedures including an execution target and an action given to the execution target are executed;
The target and status of each execution procedure, the conditions that indicate the status that the target should have in order to execute the execution procedure, the status that the target will take when the execution procedure is executed, and the status of a target changes And a computer having an execution target database for storing execution target data including a relationship between the objects indicating how the other target changes to
Storing the input program execution procedure in an execution procedure storage unit;
Storing the input execution target data in an execution target database;
One execution procedure of the program execution procedure is read from the execution procedure storage unit, and whether or not the execution procedure target satisfies the condition of the state determined by the execution procedure when the read execution procedure is executed is stored in the execution target database. Referring to and confirming, if satisfied, determining that execution is possible; otherwise, determining that execution is not possible;
If execution is possible, the target of the execution procedure that changes due to the change in the target state of the execution procedure, based on the relationship between the targets accumulated in the execution target database, along with the change of the target state accompanying the execution of the execution procedure Reflecting changes in the status of other related targets in the execution target database, repeating this from the beginning to the end of the execution procedure column, and notifying the user that there is consistency if all execution procedures are executable ,
A program for executing a step of notifying the user of inconsistency via a user notification unit at that time if execution is impossible.

Images