JP4846030B2 - Operation verification apparatus, operation verification method, and operation verification program - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a technique for testing the operation of a product.

  In order to guarantee product quality, operational tests before product shipment are indispensable. In general, a test engineer often performs an operation test by manually operating a product and confirming the operation result. However, manual operation tests are limited in the case of multi-function products with abundant operation variations.

  Therefore, it is often the case that the operation test is automatically executed by a test program to save labor of the operation test. For example, an automatic function test tool “QTP (Quick Test Professional)” provided by HP (Hewlett-Packard) Co., Ltd. automates an operation test by executing a test program created by the user.

JP 2004-227396 A

  The web page operation test is generally performed by performing an input operation on a web browser that displays the web page and confirming the operation result. The operation result after modification of the web page needs to be verified by comparing with the operation result before modification. Conventionally, this comparison verification has been performed visually by a test engineer using a printed image of the screen image. .

  The present invention has been made in view of the above problems, and an object of the present invention is to provide a technique for facilitating comparative verification of output results in a web page operation verification test.

  One embodiment of the present invention is an operation verification apparatus that executes a test program for confirming the operation of a web page. This device detects a data input operation for the web page, and records a function corresponding to the data input operation and having an interface for acquiring input data to the web page in an operation content file. And a program for generating a test program for reproducing a series of operations executed on the web page by setting a program code according to a function recorded in the operation content file A generation unit, a program execution unit for executing the test program by acquiring input data from an input data file different from the operation content file and passing the input data to the function; and a web page after execution of the test program Test result holding unit to record as test result data and previous test Comparison unit comparing previous test result data after program execution with current test result data after execution of current test program and comparison result image identifying and displaying mismatched parts detected by comparison by comparison unit A comparison result creating unit, and an imaging unit configured to image the PDF file when the test result data is a PDF (Portable Document Format) file.

  According to this aspect, since the output result at the time of the operation verification test of the web page is matched with the past output result, and the mismatched portion is identified and displayed, the output is performed on the screen. . Further, even when the output of the web page is a PDF file, the comparison is performed after conversion to image data, so that the comparison process can be performed using the same method.

  It should be noted that any combination of the above-described constituent elements and the expression of the present invention converted between an apparatus, a method, a system, a program, a recording medium storing the program, and the like are also effective as an aspect of the present invention.

  According to the present invention, comparative verification of output results in an operation verification test of a web page is facilitated.

It is a screen figure of a portal site 1st screen. It is a screen figure of a portal site 2nd screen. It is a figure which shows the log when a dictionary test is performed. It is a figure which shows the program for performing a dictionary test. It is a functional block diagram of an operation verification device. It is an outline figure until it acquires a log and performs an operation test. It is a screen figure of a log screen. It is a screen figure of a function setting screen. It is a screen figure of a program screen. It is a screen figure of an input setting screen. It is a screen figure of a case setting screen. It is a figure which shows the outline | summary of a structure in each of the operation verification apparatus of the reference technique 1, and the operation verification apparatus of the reference technique 2. It is a figure which shows the outline | summary of operation | movement in each of the operation verification apparatus of the reference technique 1, and the operation verification apparatus of the reference technique 2. It is a block diagram which shows the function structure of the operation verification apparatus of the reference technique 2. FIG. In the reference technique 2, it is a schematic diagram until it detects a user's data input operation and performs an operation test. It is a screen figure of the function setting screen in the reference technique 2. It is a screen figure of the function setting screen in the reference technique 2. It is a screen figure of the input setting screen in the reference technique 2. It is a screen figure of the case setting screen in the reference technique 2. It is a block diagram which shows the structure of the operation verification apparatus which concerns on embodiment of this invention. It is a figure explaining the effect | action of a test result comparison part. It is a figure which shows the example of a screen for designating the test result data used as comparison object. It is a flowchart explaining operation | movement of a PDF process part. It is a figure which shows an example of the test result image data produced with the web page of operation verification object. It is a figure which shows an example of the test result image data produced with the web page of operation verification object. It is a figure which shows an example of a comparison result image. It is a figure which shows an example of a mask image. It is a flowchart of the test result comparison process which concerns on embodiment.

  Before describing the operation verification system according to the present embodiment, reference techniques 1 and 2 related to the operation verification apparatus as a premise thereof will be described.

(Reference technology 1)
FIG. 1A is a screen view of the portal site first screen 300.
In Reference Technique 1, an operation test for the portal site “XYZ!” Will be described. The portal site first screen 300 includes an edit box 302 and a search link 304. The search link 304 includes four links of “web”, “blog”, “image”, and “dictionary”. When the user inputs a character string into the edit box 302 and clicks one of the search links 304 with the mouse, the search for the input character string is started. For example, when the character string “liquid crystal” is input to the edit box 302 and the link “web” is clicked with the mouse, a website including the character string “liquid crystal” is searched. When the character string “LCD” is entered in the edit box 302 and the link “blog” is clicked with the mouse, the blog including the character string “LCD” among the blogs (Weblogs) established on this portal site. The page becomes the search target.
Here, it is assumed that the character string “test” is input to the edit box 302 and the link “dictionary” is clicked with the mouse.

FIG. 1B is a screen view of the portal site second screen 310.
When “test” is input on the portal site first screen 300 and “dictionary” is clicked with the mouse, a portal site second screen 310 shown in FIG. 1B is displayed. In the search result column 306, items related to the character string “test” are listed by the “dictionary” service provided by the portal site.
Here, it is assumed that the link “test” at the top of the search result column 306 is clicked with the mouse.

In the above process, the following three operations are performed.
A1. An operation of inputting the character string “test” in the edit box 302 of the portal site first screen 300.
A2. An operation of clicking the link “dictionary” in the search link 304 of the portal site first screen 300 with a mouse.
A3. An operation of clicking the link “test” in the search result column 306 of the portal site second screen 310 with a mouse.
Hereinafter, the operation process realized by the operations of A1 to A3 is referred to as “dictionary test”.

FIG. 2 is a diagram showing the log 320 when the dictionary test is executed.
When a client terminal in which HP QTP is installed is operated to access the portal site and the operations A1 to A3 are executed, QTP generates a log 320 shown in FIG. In the log 320, operations A1 to A3 are recorded as code sentences in a predetermined format.
For example, the operation A1 is
Browser ("XYZ!"). Page ("XYZ!"). WebEdit ("p"). Set "Test"
It is expressed by the code sentence. This corresponds to a web site “XYZ!”, A web page named “XYZ!”, And an edit box named p (corresponding to the edit box 302 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B). On the other hand, the character string “test” is input.
Similarly, the operation A2 is
Browser ("XYZ!"). Page ("XYZ!"). Link ("Dictionary"). Click
Operation A3 is
Browser ("XYZ!"). Page ("XYZ! -All dictionaries-Test"). Link ("Test"). Click
It is displayed with the code sentence. Reference technology 1 will be described based on the grammar of QTP, but the format of the code sentence is not limited to this.

QTP can reproduce and execute the operation expressed by the code sentence while interpreting the code sentence of the log 320. For this reason, once the log 320 is generated, the dictionary test with the same contents can be repeatedly executed. Further, if a part of the log 320 is rewritten, the dictionary test can be executed with contents different from those at the time of manual operation. For example,
Browser ("XYZ!"). Page ("XYZ!"). WebEdit ("p"). Set "Test"
Change the string "test" contained in to another string "taste"
Browser ("XYZ!"). Page ("XYZ!"). WebEdit ("p"). Set "Taste"
And re-input to QTP, it is possible to automatically execute a dictionary test of the same content in which only the input character string in the edit box 302 is changed.
However, in order to execute the operation test while rewriting the log 320, a certain degree of knowledge about the grammar of the log 320 is required. Further, when the log 320 is rewritten, a human error may occur.

FIG. 3 is a diagram showing a program 330 for executing the dictionary test.
Instead of executing the operation test using the log 320, a test program may be created by describing the content equivalent to the log 320 in a VB (Visual Basic) script or the like. A program 330 shown in FIG. 3 is a test program created with reference to the log 320 of FIG.
For example, the operation A1 is
WebEditSet (Browser ("XYZ!"). Page ("XYZ!"). WebEdit ("p"), DataTable ("p1, dtGlobalSheet")
It is expressed by the VB function. The specific logic of the WebEditSet function is as described in the middle of the figure.

  The program 330 is different from the log 320 in that input data such as the character string “test” is not included in the program 330. Instead, the WebEditSet function receives input data from a file expressed as dtGlobalSheet (hereinafter referred to as “input data file”). That is, logic and input data are separated. By rewriting or replacing the input data file, a dictionary test with the same logic can be executed based on various input data. Compared to the operation test by manual operation and the operation test by log 320, the operation test by program 330 has an advantage that it is easy to increase variations of input data.

However, the operation test by the program 330 has the following problems.
d1. There is a new effort to create a program.
d2. The content of the program changes depending on the program creator. For example, the WebEditSet function created by the programmer P1 corresponding to the operation A1 and the WebEditSet function created by the programmer P2 corresponding to the operation A1 do not necessarily have the same logic even though the function names are the same. In addition, bugs may be mixed in the program itself. For this reason, it is necessary to make efforts to ensure the reliability of the program 330 itself. The program 330 also requires logic that is not directly related to the operation test, such as exception processing, but not all programmers implement logic that considers even exception processing. For example, in the case of the WebEditSet function shown in FIG. 3, the logic is set up so that it can cope with the case where the input data is an empty character, but such a consideration is lacking when another programmer implements the WebEditSet function. Might do.
As a result, programmer skills are likely to affect the content and results of behavior tests.

FIG. 4 is a functional block diagram of the operation verification apparatus 100.
Each functional block shown in the block diagram of the present specification can be realized in hardware by an element or a mechanical device such as a CPU of a computer, and in software by a computer program or the like. Here, The functional block realized by those cooperation is drawn. Therefore, those skilled in the art will understand that these functional blocks can be realized in various forms by a combination of hardware and software. For example, each functional block may be stored in a recording medium as a computer program, installed in a hard disk of an information processing device, read into a main memory as appropriate, and executed by a processor.
The operation verification apparatus 100 may be formed as dedicated hardware, or may be formed as a software module that cooperates with a user interface such as a web browser.
The operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 1 will be described as a software module formed as an add-on of QTP.

The operation verification apparatus 100 includes an IF (interface) unit 110, a data processing unit 130, and a data holding unit 140.
The IF unit 110 is in charge of an interface with a user or QTP. The data processing unit 130 executes various data processing based on data acquired from the IF unit 110 and the data holding unit 140. The data processing unit 130 also serves as an interface between the IF unit 110 and the data holding unit 140. The data holding unit 140 is a storage area for holding various data.

IF unit 110:
The IF unit 110 includes an input unit 112 and an output unit 118. The input unit 112 is in charge of input processing from the user and QTP, and the output unit 118 is in charge of output processing for the user and QTP. The input unit 112 includes a log acquisition unit 114 and an input data acquisition unit 116. The log acquisition unit 114 acquires a log from QTP. The input data acquisition unit 116 acquires an input data file and acquires input data to be provided to the program from the input data file. Details of the input data file will be described in detail with reference to FIGS.

  The output unit 118 includes a function setting screen display unit 120, an input setting screen display unit 122, a program screen display unit 124, and a case setting screen display unit 126. The function setting screen display unit 120 displays a function setting screen 210 shown in FIG. The input setting screen display unit 122 displays an input setting screen 230 shown in FIG. The program screen display unit 124 displays a program screen 220 shown in FIG. The case setting screen display unit 126 displays a case setting screen 240 shown in FIG.

Data processing unit 130:
The data processing unit 130 includes a program generation unit 132, a program execution unit 134, and a test case registration unit 136. The program generation unit 132 automatically generates an operation test program. The program execution unit 134 executes the generated program. In the reference technique 1, QTP is caused to execute a program. The test case registration unit 136 registers the execution set in the case file. The execution set and the case file will be described in detail with reference to FIG.

Data holding unit 140:
The data holding unit 140 includes a log holding unit 142, a program holding unit 144, an input data file holding unit 146, a case file holding unit 148, a function holding unit 150, and a test result holding unit 152. The log holding unit 142 holds a log. The program holding unit 144 holds a program. The input data file holding unit 146 holds an input data file. The case file holding unit 148 holds a case file. The function holding unit 150 holds a function library for the functions registered in the operation test program. The result holding unit 152 holds the result of the operation test.

FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram from obtaining a log to executing an operation test in Reference Technology 1.
First, manually operate the device to be tested. In the reference technique 1, the portal site “XYZ!” Is accessed by operating the web browser of the client terminal. QTP generates a log, and the log acquisition unit 114 acquires a log from QTP. A function is associated with each code sentence in advance. The function setting screen display unit 120 reads the function library of the function holding unit 150 and displays a list of functions corresponding to each code sentence included in the log (S1). In the function setting screen display unit 120, the user can add, change, and delete functions as appropriate. In this way, functions to be included in the program are specified. S1 will be described in detail later with reference to FIG.

  Next, input data to be supplied to this program is set (S2). The setting contents are registered as an input data file. S2 will be described in detail later with reference to FIG. A program is automatically generated from the function group set in S1 (S3). S3 will be described later in detail with reference to FIG.

Next, a combination of a program and an input data file is registered as an “execution set” from a plurality of types of programs and a plurality of types of input data files. A plurality of execution sets can be registered (S4). The setting contents are registered as a case file. For example, when executing the program P1 based on the input data file F2 and then executing the program P2 based on the input data file F6,
Execution set 1: Program P1 + Input data file F2
Execution set 2: Program P2 + input data file F6
Is registered in the case file. S4 will be described in detail with reference to FIG.
Finally, the program is executed according to the case file. In the case of the above example, the program execution unit 134 continuously executes the execution set 1 and the execution set 2. The program execution unit 134 registers the program execution result, in other words, the test result in the test result holding unit 152.

FIG. 6 is a screen diagram of the log screen 200.
When the log acquisition unit 114 acquires the log, the output unit 118 displays the log on the log display area 202 in the log screen 200. The user may copy and paste the QTP log into the log display area 202. Alternatively, the output unit 118 may acquire a log (file) generated by QTP when the log screen 200 is displayed and display the log in the log display area 202. When the user clicks the execution button 204 with the mouse, a function setting screen 210 shown in FIG. 7 is displayed.

FIG. 7 is a screen diagram of the function setting screen 210.
The program generation unit 132 specifies a function for the code sentence included in the log, and displays the specified function in a list in the function column 214 of the function setting screen 210. The number column 212 indicates the execution order, the description column 216 indicates the outline of the function, the object column 218 indicates the operation target object, the parameter column 219 indicates the parameter name, and the input value column 217 indicates the input data.
A sign statement indicating the above-mentioned operation A1,
Browser ("XYZ!"). Page ("XYZ!"). WebEdit ("p"). Set "Test"
The WebEditSet function is associated with the function library in advance. When the program generating unit 132 reads the first code sentence of the log 320, the program generating unit 132 refers to the function library of the function holding unit 150 and identifies the WebEditSet function. Since the object to be operated by the operation A1 is the page “Browser (“ XYZ! ”). Page (“ XYZ! ”)”, The object column 218 displays “Browser (“ XYZ! ”). Page ( "XYZ!") "Is set. The WebEditSet function is a function that takes input data set in the edit box p (edit box 302) as an argument. Although it is possible to set input data to be set in the edit box p in the input value column 217, it is assumed that no input data is registered in the function setting screen 210. Input data to be set in the edit box p is set on the input setting screen 230 described in detail with reference to FIG.

  Since the log 320 includes three code sentences corresponding to the operations A1 to A3, the program generation unit 132 identifies three functions. The user may add, delete, or change a function on the function setting screen 210. The fourth TextCheck function and the fifth WebScreenCapture function in FIG. 7 are functions additionally selected by the user.

  The TextCheck function is a function for determining whether or not a character string to be substituted for the variable q is included in the displayed web page. The WebScreenCapture function is a function that captures a screen of the web page being displayed. The WebScreenCapture function is a convenient function for trail management of the results of operation tests. As described above, the function library includes not only functions corresponding to user operations such as the WebEditSet function but also functions for assisting and supporting the operation test such as the TestCheck function. The user can set logic to be included in the operation test simply by selecting a desired function from the function library.

  When the test case setting button 215 is clicked, a case setting screen 240 in FIG. 10 is displayed. When the input data file creation button 213 is clicked, the input setting screen 230 of FIG. 9 is displayed. When the program creation button 211 is clicked, the program screen 220 of FIG. 8 is displayed.

The operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 1 has the following merits.
m1. The logic to be included in the program can be selected simply by selecting a function based on GUI (Graphical User Interface). There is little effort to create a program.
m2. Since the functions included in the program are functions registered as a function library, the quality of the program hardly varies depending on the creator. Necessary logic such as exception handling is also incorporated in each function in advance.

FIG. 8 is a screen diagram of the program screen 220.
When the program creation button 211 is clicked with the mouse on the function setting screen 210, the program generation unit 132 generates a program, and the program screen display unit 124 displays the source code in the program display area 222 in the program screen 220. The program is held in the program holding unit 144.

FIG. 9 is a screen diagram of the input setting screen 230.
When the input data file creation button 213 is clicked on the function setting screen 210, the input setting screen display unit 122 displays the input setting screen 230. In the function setting screen 210, parameters p and q are defined. The number column 232 indicates the input order, the variable column 234 indicates the input data to the parameter p, and the variable column 236 indicates the input data to the parameter q. On the input setting screen 230, input data to be substituted for the parameters p and q is set. Each input data is held in the input data file holding unit 146 as an input data file.

For example, when an input data file in the format shown in FIG.
1. 1. A test for inputting a character string “test” into the edit box 302 to search the dictionary and determining whether the character string “test” is included in the screen showing the execution result. 2. A test for inputting a character string “test” into the edit box 302 and searching the dictionary to determine whether the character string “test” is included in the screen showing the execution result. Enter the character string “test case” in the edit box 302, search the dictionary, and determine whether the character string “test” is included in the screen showing the execution result. Multiple dictionary tests based on can be executed continuously.

FIG. 10 is a screen diagram of the case setting screen 240.
When the test case setting button 215 is clicked with the mouse on the function setting screen 210, the case setting screen display unit 126 displays the case setting screen 240. The number column 244 indicates the execution order, the execution set column 245 indicates the outline of the execution set, the program column 246 indicates the program to be executed, and the input data file column 247 indicates the input data file from which the input data is to be extracted.
Here, the website of the Internet securities will be described as an operation test target.

  In FIG. Login, 2. 2. News check, Stock sales, 4. Bond sales, 5. Address change, 6. Six execution sets called logout are registered. First, QTP generates a “login” project from the program “login.vbs”. Here, the “project” is a directory including a group of QTP execution format files. QTP executes the process defined in login.vbs and login.xls with the “login” project as input. When the user clicks the execute button 248 with a mouse, the “login” project of the execution set “login” is first executed. When the first execution set “login” is completed, the “ncheck” project is executed as the execution set “news check”.

  Thus, when the execution button 248 is clicked with the mouse, Login, 2. 2. News check, Stock sales, 4. Bond sales, 5. Address change, 6. Six execution sets called logout are executed continuously. As a result, it is possible to automate an operation test based on a test scenario of “login, check news, instruct to sell hand shares and bonds, change address, and log out”.

The user can freely create a test scenario on the case setting screen 240. For example, instead of the execution set “Stock Sell”, you can register the execution set “Stock Purchase”, or register another input data file instead of “stock1.xls” as the input data file for the execution set “Stock Sell”. May be. The test scenario registered on the case setting screen 240 is recorded as a case file and held in the case file holding unit 148.
By changing the test scenario configuration and the input data file little by little, it becomes easier to expand the variation of the operation test.

The operation verification device 100 of the reference technique 1 has been described above.
According to the operation verification apparatus 100, a program and input data, that is, a process and a parameter can be separated. And the program for it can be automatically generated based on the setting of the GUI base. This makes it possible to easily generate a stable quality program while ensuring the diversity of logic included in the program. In addition, since the contents of the operation test can be changed simply by changing the contents of the input data file, it is easy to expand the variations of the operation test.

  Furthermore, by registering an execution set in a case file and creating a test scenario, operation tests in various situations can be realized while combining existing programs. In addition to functions for operating the test target device such as the WebEditSet function, functions such as the WebScreenCapture function for supporting the operation test are prepared to further improve the efficiency and reliability of the operation test. It becomes easy to improve.

(Reference technology 2)
The reference technique 2 proposes an operation verification apparatus 100 obtained by improving the reference technique 1.
First, an outline of the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 2 will be described while comparing the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 1 and the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 2.

  FIG. 11 shows an outline of the configuration of each of the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 1 and the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 2. As shown in FIG. 11A, the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 1 is used to improve the efficiency of the operation test of the QTP module 102 which is an execution engine of the operation test and the web server 400 using the QTP module 102. And a wrapper module 104. The wrapper module 104 includes the functional blocks shown in FIG.

  In FIG. 11A, the user operates the web server 400, which is a target device for operation confirmation, via the QTP module 102 (S100). The wrapper module 104 obtains a log in which the operation content is recorded from the QTP module 102 and provides the function setting screen 210 to the user (S102). When performing the operation test, the user causes the wrapper module 104 to generate an operation test program that can be read by the QTP module, and causes the QTP module 102 to execute the program (S104).

  On the other hand, as illustrated in FIG. 11B, the operation verification apparatus 100 according to the reference technique 2 includes an integrated verification module 106 in which the function of the operation test execution engine and the function of the wrapper module 104 are integrated. When the user operates the web server 400 via the integrated verification module 106 (S200), the integrated verification module 106 sequentially detects the operation contents, sets the data of the function setting screen 210, and provides the function setting screen 210 to the user. (S202). When executing the operation test, the user causes the integrated verification module 106 to generate and execute an operation test program (S204).

  FIG. 12 shows an outline of operations in each of the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 1 and the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 2. FIG. 12A shows an outline of the operation in the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 1. The user executes a data input operation on the web server 400 (S110), and the QTP module 102 outputs a log in which the operation content is recorded (S112). The user copies the log data to a predetermined input area of the QTP module 102 (S114). The wrapper module 104 sets and displays a function setting screen based on the log data set in the predetermined input area (S116), and the user adds the function / input data to be added / changed via the function setting screen. Set (S118).

  The wrapper module 104 generates a QTP program for an operation test based on the function setting screen data (S120). The user copies the QTP program to a predetermined input area of the QTP module 102 (S122). On the case setting screen, the user sets an operation test scenario that specifies the QTP program and the input data file as a set (S124). Based on the scenario, the wrapper module 104 passes a set of the QTP program and the input data file to the QTP module 102, and executes an operation test for each set (S126).

  FIG. 12B shows an outline of the operation in the operation verification apparatus 100 of Reference Technique 2. The user executes a data input operation on the web server 400 (S210). The integrated verification module 106 sequentially detects the data input operation, records the function corresponding to the data input operation in the operation content file, and displays the recorded data of the operation content file on the function setting screen (S212). The user sets the function / input data to be added / changed in the operation content file via the function setting screen (S214). Then, on the case setting screen, the user sets an operation test scenario specifying the operation content file and the input data file as a set (S216). Based on the scenario, the integrated verification module 106 generates and executes an operation test program in which one or more sets in the scenario are aggregated (S218).

  As described above, in the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 1, the QTP module 102 and the wrapper module 104 are separated. Therefore, in order to link the two modules, the user himself / herself has to execute a mediation operation. Further, the wrapper module 104 needs to call the QTP module 102 for each set in the scenario and execute the test program for each set.

  On the other hand, in the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 2, the execution engine of the operation test and the wrapper that realizes its efficient use are seamlessly integrated without being separated. Therefore, compared with the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 1, the user's work required for linking the separated modules becomes unnecessary, and the user's work amount for the operation test is reduced. In addition, since an operation test program in which a plurality of sets in a scenario are aggregated is generated and a series of scenarios is executed by executing the program, a quick operation test is realized.

  FIG. 13 is a block diagram illustrating a functional configuration of the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 2. The functional blocks shown in the figure are included in the integrated verification module 106 shown in FIG. Among the functional blocks of the reference technique 2, the functional blocks corresponding to the functional blocks of the reference technique 1 are denoted by the same reference numerals. Functional blocks with the same reference numerals as those of the reference technique 1 are described when the functions are different from the contents described in the reference technique 1, and description of similar functions is omitted.

  The data holding unit 140 includes an operation content file holding unit 143, a program holding unit 144, an input data file holding unit 146, a case file holding unit 148, and a function holding unit 150. The operation content file holding unit 143 stores an operation content file in which a function to be set in the operation test program is recorded. The program holding unit 144 stores an operation test program generated according to the operation content file.

  The input unit 112 of the IF unit 110 includes an operation detection unit 115 and a user setting reception unit 117. The operation detection unit 115 sequentially detects user data input operations on the web server 400. The user setting reception unit 117 detects setting information by the user for the function setting screen 210, the input setting screen 230, and the case setting screen 240.

  The output unit 118 of the IF unit 110 includes a function setting screen display unit 120, an input setting screen display unit 122, and a case setting screen display unit 126. The function setting screen display unit 120 displays a function setting screen 210 that displays the contents of the operation content file recorded in the operation content file holding unit 143 on a predetermined display device.

  The data processing unit 130 includes a program generation unit 132, a program execution unit 134, a test case registration unit 136, an operation recording unit 137, and an input data recording unit 138. The operation recording unit 137 refers to the function holding unit 150, specifies a function corresponding to the data input operation detected by the operation detection unit 115, and records the function in the operation content file. The operation recording unit 137 records user setting information for the function setting screen 210 in an operation content file. The input data recording unit 138 records input data input by the user via the input setting screen 230 in an input data file. The program generation unit 132 generates an operation test program according to the function recorded in the operation content file. The program execution unit 134 executes an operation test program as an execution engine for the operation test, and records the result in the test result holding unit 152.

  FIG. 14 is a schematic diagram from when the user's data input operation is detected to when the operation test is executed in Reference Technology 2. First, the user operates the web browser of the client terminal to access the web server 400, and executes various operations on the web server 400, typically data input operations on web pages provided by the web server 400. The operation detection unit 115 sequentially detects data input operations by the user, and the operation recording unit 137 reads the function library of the function holding unit 150 and sequentially records the functions corresponding to the data input operations in the operation content file (S220).

  Next, the function setting screen display unit 120 reads the operation content file in the operation content file holding unit 143 and displays a function setting screen that displays a list of functions corresponding to the operation by the user. On the function setting screen, the user can add, change, and delete functions as appropriate, and can set input data to be statically set in the operation test program. In this way, a function to be included in the operation test program is specified. The function setting screen will be described later with reference to FIGS. 15 and 16.

  Next, the input setting screen display unit 122 displays the input setting screen 230. The user sets input data to be dynamically supplied to the operation test program when the operation test is executed via the input setting screen 230. The input data set by the user is recorded in the input data file (S222). The input setting screen 230 will be described later with reference to FIG.

Next, the case setting screen display unit 126 displays the case setting screen 240. The user registers a combination of an operation content file and an input data file as an execution set from a plurality of types of operation content files and a plurality of types of input data files. The test case registration unit 136 records one or more execution sets in the case file (S224). For example, in the test case 1, after the setting content of the operation content file F01 is executed based on the input data file F12, the setting content of the operation content file F02 is executed based on the input data file F16.
Test case 1:
Execution set 1: operation content file F01 + input data file F12
Execution set 2: operation content file F02 + input data file F16
Is registered in the case file. The case setting screen 240 will be described later with reference to FIG.

  Next, the program generation unit 132 generates an operation test program based on the case file and the operation content file (S226). Specifically, the functions sequentially recorded in the operation content file set in the execution set may be sequentially set in the program code of the operation test program. Further, when a plurality of execution sets are set in one test case, the program generation unit 132 collects and sets the functions recorded in the operation content file of each execution set in one operation test program.

  In addition, when the input data itself is set for the function of the operation content file, the program generation unit 132 statically sets the input data in the operation test program. For example, when generating an operation test program, input data is set in advance as a function argument in the program code. If an input data file is specified for the function of the operation content file, the data of the input data file is set to be read when the program is executed.

  Finally, the program execution unit 134 executes the operation test program to reproduce a series of operations performed by the user on the web server 400 (S228). For functions that require data in the input data file, the data of the input data file read when the operation test program is executed is passed as an argument. That is, the function is executed based on the input data dynamically acquired from the input data file.

  FIG. 15 is a screen diagram of the function setting screen 210. This figure shows a function setting screen 210 that displays “search entry.xls” described later in FIG. The data file column name column 250 is an area in which the column name of the input data file in which the input data set in the parameter is recorded is designated. The user may describe the input data itself in the input value field 217, or instead, may specify the column name of the input data file in the data file column name field 250. When the column name of the input data file is specified in the data file column name field 250, when the operation test program is executed, one or more input data set in the column of the input data file is read and passed to the function. .

  FIG. 16 is a screen diagram of the function setting screen 210 in the reference technique 2. In the input value field 217 of the “search part signature” parameter in FIG. 9, input data candidates are listed in a drop-down list 252. The input data candidates displayed in the drop-down list 252 are input data candidates displayed in the drop-down list of the web page when the user inputs data to the web page. The user can select input data from the drop-down list 252 and the burden on the user in setting the input data is reduced.

  In order to set the drop-down list 252, the operation detection unit 115 acquires input data candidates displayed in the drop-down list of the web page when the user performs a data input operation on the web page. For example, a candidate for input data in the drop-down list is acquired from web page data acquired from the web server 400, for example, HTML data. The operation recording unit 137 records the input data candidates in the input value field 217 of the operation content file. When the input value field 217 is input, the function setting screen display unit 120 displays a list of input data candidates recorded in the operation content file in the form of a drop-down list.

  FIG. 17 is a screen diagram of the input setting screen 230 in the reference technique 2. FIG. 17A shows an input setting screen 230 that displays the input data file “search entry data.xls” in which the column name is specified in the function setting screen 210 of FIGS. 15 and 16. 15 and FIG. 16, the “name kanji” column and the “name kana” column in FIG. 17A are designated. FIG. 17B shows an input setting screen 230 that displays another input data file “login data 2.xls”. The input data file shown in the figure will be described later with reference to FIG.

  FIG. 18 is a screen diagram of the case setting screen 240 in the reference technique 2. A basic execution order of each execution set is set in the execution number column 253, and test case identification information is set in the test case ID column 254. In the group ID column 256, identification information indicating a group of execution set repetition processing is set, and in the line number column 258, a reference range of the input data file in the operation test is set. The operation content file column 260 is set with an operation content file for each execution set, and the input data file column 262 is set with an input data file for each execution set. The setting content on the case setting screen 240 is stored as a case file in the case file holding unit 148.

  When the test execution button 264 is pressed on the case setting screen 240, the program generation unit 132 generates an operation test program according to the case file and the operation content file. Specifically, based on one or more operation content files in which the same test case ID is set in the case file, one operation test program in which the function recorded in each operation content file is set in the program code Generate. For example, the program generation unit 132 performs one operation test program for executing a registered case and one for executing a search case in accordance with a case file in which the contents of the case setting screen 240 of FIG. 18 are recorded. An operation test program is generated. Note that “one operation test program” means a program executed as one execution unit, in other words, a program executed at one execution opportunity, and the number of physical programs is not limited.

  When the program execution unit 134 executes one function recorded in each operation content file, the program execution unit 134 associates the function with the function in the operation content file among the data of the input data file associated with the operation content file. Pass column data to the function.

  Further, the program execution unit 134 handles a plurality of execution sets assigned the same group ID in the same test case as the same group that should execute the same repeated process. Specifically, each execution set with the same group ID is repeatedly executed, and each time it is repeated, the function recorded in the operation content file of each execution set is recorded in the input data file. Pass a certain number of records. In the reference technique 2, one record recorded in the input data file is passed to the function every time it is repeated. Note that the program generation unit 132 may generate an operation test program in which a repetition instruction for executing the above-described processing is set in the program code.

  Further, the program execution unit 134 passes the input data specified by the line number in the input data file to the function recorded in the operation content file for the execution set for which the line number is specified. Therefore, when the repetition process by the group ID is designated and the line number is further designated, the repetition is executed by the designated number of line numbers. For example, in the registration case of FIG. 18, there is no group setting across execution sets, and processing for one input data is executed in each execution set. On the other hand, in the search case of FIG. 18, the process for one input data in each execution set is repeated three times.

Specifically, in the first iteration, login2. 1. Login data for the function recorded in xls Data “t_yamada” on the 35th line of xls is passed. And search entry. Search entry data for the function recorded in xls, specifically, the function No. 1 in FIG. The data “Taro Yamada” in the first line of the xls and full name kanji is passed. For the function No. 2 in FIG. The data “Yamada Taro” in the first line of the xls and the name Kana is passed.
In the second iteration, login 2. 1. Login data for the function recorded in xls The data “h_yamada” on the 36th line of xls is passed. And search entry. Search entry data for the function No. 1 in FIG. Data “Kana Yamada” in the second line of xls and full name kanji is passed. In addition, the search entry data for the function No. 2 in FIG. The data “Yamada Hanako” in the second line of xls and the name Kana is passed.
Similarly, in the third iteration, the input data in the incremented line number is passed to each function.

  The operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 2 also has the effects described in the reference technique 1. Specifically, since separation of processing and parameters and GUI-based setting are realized, it is possible to easily generate a stable quality program while ensuring the diversity of logic included in the operation test program. Moreover, it becomes easy to expand the variation of the operation test by setting the input data file. Furthermore, operation tests in various scenarios can be realized by setting case files.

  In the operation verification apparatus 100 of Reference Technology 2, the execution engine function that executes the operation test program and the wrapper function that realizes efficient use of the execution engine are seamlessly linked without requiring user intervention. To do. Thereby, the burden on the user for executing the operation test can be reduced. Unlike the case of the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 1, the user does not need to be aware of the environment for program execution such as a QTP project. That is, an operation content file and an input data file in a format that can be easily understood and operated by the user may be set. As a result, the user can easily perform the operation test.

  In the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 2, one operation test program in which a plurality of execution sets of the same test case are aggregated is generated, and the one operation test program is executed. Compared with execution for each execution set in the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technology 1, that is, for each project of QTP generated based on the execution set, overhead when executing a series of operation tests in one test case is reduced. A quick operation test can be realized.

  In the operation verification apparatus 100 of the reference technique 2, it is possible to set a repeated group over a plurality of execution sets. As a result, the execution set can be flexibly divided, and an operation test scenario can be flexibly set. Furthermore, the reference range of the input data file can be set. Thereby, even if the input data file is the same, the reference range can be flexibly changed according to the scenario, and various variations of the operation test can be easily realized.

  In the reference technique 2 described above, the drop-down list 252 is shown as an example of supporting the value setting on the function setting screen 210. In the modified example, candidates for input data displayed so as to be selectable by a radio button, a check box, a list box, etc. on the web page are displayed so as to be selectable on the function setting screen 210 in a drop-down list 252 or other formats. Also good. That is, input data candidates that are displayed so as to be selectable in various formats for the user when performing a data input operation on the operation confirmation target device are displayed so as to be selectable when setting values on the function setting screen 210. Also good.

  In the reference technique 1 described above, the operation verification apparatus 100 creates an operation test program on the condition that a user operation on the web server 400 is accepted by the QTP and a log is generated. In the reference technique 2 described above, the operation verification apparatus 100 detects a user operation on the web server 400 and creates an operation test program. As a modification, an operation test program may be generated when the operation verification apparatus 100 acquires an HTML file from the web server 400. In this case, the operation verification apparatus 100 searches for a form tag included in the HTML file and specifies what input interface is included in the HTML file. If a function for inputting data to each input interface is selected and these functions are arranged in various orders, an operation test program can be generated without an explicit web operation by the user.

(Embodiment)
Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described.

  In the above reference techniques 1 and 2, it has been described that the operation verification apparatus 100 creates a web page operation test program and performs the operation verification of the web page. By executing the operation test program, a web page screen as an operation result is output, and test result data is stored in the test result holding unit. Since it is desirable to repeat the above operation verification every time a web page is modified, there are a plurality of web page test result data. Hereinafter, the web page that is the target of the operation test is also referred to as a “test target page” below.

  Conventionally, it has been confirmed manually by a test engineer whether or not these test result data are consistent with each other. In other words, a screen at the time of operation verification of the test target page at a certain point and a screen at the time of operation verification of the modified test target page are captured and printed. Alternatively, if the test target page outputs a PDF (Portable Document Format) file as the operation result, the PDF file at the time of verifying the operation of the test target page at a certain time and the operation verification of the modified test target page Print a PDF file. Then, the printed ones were brought into contact with each other and visually confirmed whether there were any errors or wrinkles in the operation results. If the number of times the test target page is modified increases, the number of screen captures or PDF file prints increases, making management difficult. Also, if the test target page output is a screen or PDF file that spans multiple pages, When such numerical values are output, the burden of visual confirmation is heavy.

  Therefore, the embodiment of the present invention provides a technique for reducing the burden when comparing an output result at the time of a web page operation verification test with a past output result.

  FIG. 19 is a block diagram showing a functional configuration of the operation verification apparatus 500 according to the embodiment of the present invention. Among the functional blocks in the figure, the functional blocks corresponding to the functional blocks of the operation verification apparatus 100 shown in the reference techniques 1 and 2 are denoted by the same reference numerals. Functional blocks with the same reference numerals are described when the functions are different from those already described in Reference Techniques 1 and 2, and similar functions are already described, and thus description thereof is omitted as appropriate.

  The operation verification apparatus 500 is configured by adding a test result comparison unit 510 and a PDF processing unit 580 to the operation verification apparatus 100. The test result comparison unit 510 executes a comparison verification process between the test result image data. The PDF processing unit 580 converts the PDF file into image data for comparison verification processing when the output result of the test target page is a PDF file.

  The test result comparison unit 510 includes a test result acquisition unit 512, a comparison unit 514, a mask holding unit 516, a comparison result creation unit 518, a user designation reception unit 520, and a mask creation unit 522.

The test result acquisition unit 512 acquires test result data after operation verification recorded in the test result holding unit 152. The test result data is image data obtained by capturing a screen output of a web page or a PDF file. In the former case, when the operation result of the web page extends over a plurality of pages, it is preferable to capture the test result in one image data by capturing the page while scrolling, but the test result is a plurality of image data. It may be divided into
Test result data to be compared is designated by the user on a designation screen 530 (FIG. 21) described later. When the designated test result data is a PDF file, the test result data is imaged by the PDF processing unit 580, and then the image data is returned to the test result acquisition unit 512, and subsequent comparison verification processing is performed. The imaging of the PDF file will be described later.

  The comparison unit 514 compares the image data of the past test result with the image data of the latest test result, and detects different portions. Such comparison between image data can be performed using known image comparison software. As an example, if a difference is simply taken between corresponding pixels of image data, the matching portion becomes zero, so that the mismatching portion can be easily detected. By comparing image data instead of comparing test result text, it is possible to detect not only text mismatch points but also design mismatch points.

  The comparison result creation unit 518 outputs the latest test result image data as a comparison result image in a state where the mismatched portion between the new and old test result data detected by the comparison by the comparison unit 514 is identified and displayed. This comparison result image is displayed on the user terminal via the output unit 118 of the IF unit 110. The user can easily grasp the mismatched part between the old and new test result data by looking at the identified and displayed part in the comparison result image. For the identification display, any display method can be used, for example, displaying inconsistent portions by shading, changing the color, inverting display, or drawing an underline.

  The mask creating unit 522 creates a mask image for preventing the user from discriminating and displaying the range in which the user allows mismatching in the test result data. For the range to be masked, the user designation receiving unit 520 receives the designation from the user terminal via the input unit 112 and passes it to the mask creating unit 522. The created mask image is stored in the mask holding unit 516, and is used for comparison between test result data from the next time. The creation of the mask image will be described in more detail with reference to FIGS.

  When there is a mask image in the mask holding unit 516, the comparison result creating unit 518 applies the mask image to the comparison result image and displays it on the user terminal. By this masking process, the inconsistent portion within the masked range is displayed in a state where the identification display is removed, that is, in a normal state.

The PDF processing unit 580 includes a PDF file acquisition unit 582, a security confirmation unit 584, and an imaging unit 586.
When the test result acquisition unit 512 determines that the test result data designated by the user is a PDF file, the PDF file acquisition unit 582 acquires the PDF file from the test result holding unit 152. The test result acquisition unit 512 determines whether or not the specified test result data is a PDF file based on, for example, an extension.

In general, it is considered that there are the following output formats of the PDF file by the test target page, and in any case, it can be saved as test result data.
1. Format displayed inline in the same window: Saved by executing [File]-[Save As] from the browser menu.
2. Format displayed in a separate window: Save by executing [File]-[Save As] from the browser menu.
3. Format displayed when the viewer is started: Saved by executing [File]-[Save Copy] from the viewer menu.
4). After the dialog is displayed, start the viewer. Format displayed: Select [Open] in the dialog for selecting whether to open or save the file, and then execute [File]-[Save Copy] from the viewer menu. Can be saved.
5). Format saved in the file after the dialog is displayed: Select [Save] in the dialog that prompts you to open or save the file, enter the file path, and save.
The PDF file acquisition unit 582 acquires the PDF file stored as described above.

  The security confirmation unit 584 confirms various security settings set in the acquired PDF file. Specifically, it is confirmed whether a user password is set, whether it is a copyable format, or a printable format. Since the PDF file has different security settings depending on the version and the user's selection, it is necessary to check each PDF file.

  The security confirmation unit 584 confirms the file information in the PDF file, determines that the security information is included when the keyword “Encrypt” exists, and further checks the presence of the encryption dictionary to set the user password. Can be confirmed. Alternatively, by monitoring the appearance of a dialog asking for a password in the process of opening a PDF file with the function of the Windows API, it is possible to confirm whether or not a user password is set. If a user password is set, the security is released by displaying a predetermined dialog for allowing the user to input the password or inputting a pre-stored password before imaging processing. To do.

  Also, the security confirmation unit 584 searches for an encryption dictionary in the PDF file, and confirms whether copying is possible and printing is possible depending on whether the predetermined bit is “1” or “0”. Information regarding whether copying is possible and whether printing is possible is passed to the imaging unit 586. The meaning of bits in the encryption dictionary is defined in the PDF specification.

  The imaging unit 586 selects an appropriate imaging method for each PDF file based on information regarding whether copying is possible and whether printing is possible. Then, the PDF file is imaged by either the printer driver cooperation unit 588 or the clipboard cooperation unit 590. If the PDF file to be imaged is set to “not printable”, imaging is performed by the clipboard linkage unit 590, and if it is set to “not copyable”, imaging is executed by the printer driver linkage unit 588. If the setting is printable and copyable, imaging may be performed with either. Alternatively, the imaging unit 586 is configured to attempt imaging while one of the printer driver cooperation unit 588 or the clipboard cooperation unit 590 is set in advance, and when the imaging fails, the other imaging unit 586 is configured to try again. May be.

  The printer driver cooperation unit 588 converts the PDF file into an image by executing print processing using a known printer driver. As an application for executing printing, Adobe Reader (registered trademark) is preferably used. In order to realize this processing, an arbitrary image printer driver is installed in the operation verification apparatus 500 in advance to create a printer. Then, by starting Adobe Reader and specifying the name of the PDF file to be imaged and the name of the created printer and printing, an image file is created by the printer driver. A series of processes of starting Adobe Reader, specifying a PDF file name and printer name, and printing can be automatically performed by, for example, a Java robot function.

The clipboard linkage unit 590 uses Adobe Reader's “Copy file to clipboard” function to copy the page contents of the PDF file to the clipboard, and then saves the clipboard contents as an image file to create an image. Execute. These series of processes can be automatically executed by, for example, a Java robot function.
In general, imaging using the clipboard can be performed for only one page at a time, so the clipboard linkage unit 590 needs information on how many pages the PDF file to be imaged is configured in advance. . Therefore, the clipboard linkage unit 590 temporarily saves the PDF file as text by Adobe Reader before copying the page contents of the PDF file to be imaged to the clipboard. Subsequently, the saved text is opened with a word processor, an editor, or the like, and the number of pages of the PDF file to be imaged is acquired by counting the number of characters or lines. The clipboard linkage unit 590 then repeats the operation of copying the contents of the PDF file to the clipboard as many times as the number of pages, and further saving it as an image file.

  The image data created by the imaging unit 586 is returned to the test result acquisition unit 512.

  Next, the operation of the test result comparison unit 510 will be described with reference to FIG. The test result acquisition unit 512 uses image data of past test results (hereinafter also referred to as “comparison source data”) 350 and image data of the latest test results (hereinafter also referred to as “comparison data”) 352 as test results. Obtained from the holding unit 152 or from the PDF processing unit 580. The comparison unit 514 compares the two image data (S320), and the comparison result creation unit 518 creates the comparison result image 354. The user refers to the comparison result image, sets a range allowing mismatch between the new and old data as a mask range (S322), and based on this, the mask creation unit 522 creates a mask image 356. At the time of comparison of the test results after the next time (S324), the comparison result creation unit 518 performs mask processing for applying the mask image 356 to the comparison result image 354 (S326). As a result, a post-mask comparison result image 358 from which the mask portion identification process has been removed is generated and output to the user terminal.

  FIG. 21 shows an example of a screen for designating old and new test result data to be compared. The test result acquisition unit 512 displays a designation screen 530 on the user terminal when starting comparison of test result data. The designation screen 530 includes an area 532 for designating a file path for comparison source data, an area 534 for designating a file path for comparison destination data, and an area 536 for designating a storage destination of comparison result image data. When a comparison button 538 is clicked after specifying a file path in each area, the test result acquisition unit 512 determines whether the comparison source data and the comparison destination data are image data or a PDF file. In the case of image data, the comparison source data and the comparison destination data are fetched as they are, and the comparison process is started. In the case of a PDF file, the PDF processing unit 580 receives comparison source data and comparison destination data imaged from the PDF file, and then the comparison processing is started.

  If the comparison source data and the comparison destination data are not saved as a single image data but are saved as a plurality of image data for each page, a directory in which a plurality of image data is saved at once is filed. You may comprise so that it can designate as a path | pass. In this case, the comparison unit compares the image data for each page corresponding to the comparison source data and the comparison destination data, and the comparison result creation unit creates a comparison result image for each page. The comparison result image of the page in which the comparison source data and the comparison destination data have a mismatch portion and the comparison result image of the page in which the mismatch portion does not exist may be stored in different directories.

  FIG. 22 is a flowchart for explaining the operation of the PDF processing unit 580. First, when the test result data is determined to be a PDF file by the test result acquisition unit 512, the PDF file acquisition unit 582 acquires the PDF file (S252). The security confirmation unit 584 confirms the security setting of the PDF file (S254). The imaging unit 586 selects whether the printer driver cooperation unit 588 or the clipboard cooperation unit 590 performs the imaging according to the security setting (S256), and the PDF file is imaged by the selected method. (S258). The image data is returned to the test result acquisition unit 512, and a test result comparison process is performed.

  23 and 24 show an example of test result image data created by the test target page. Here, it is assumed that the test target page creates a schedule table for managing schedules of a plurality of conference spaces for each date. 23 represents past test result image data 540, and FIG. 24 represents current test result image data 550. Comparing FIG. 23 and FIG. 24, it can be seen that although the schedule table is correctly created in all cases, the dates in the schedule table are different because the dates on which the operation verification tests are performed are different.

  Since the dates in the old and new test result image data are different, the comparison result creating unit 518 creates a comparison result image 560 as shown in FIG. In the comparison result image 560, the date portion is knitted 562 and is displayed in an identification manner. In this way, the user can easily grasp the inconsistent portion between the old and new test result data simply by referring to the comparison result image 560 and searching for the identification display portion.

  However, as described above, it is natural that the date in the test result changes depending on the execution date of the operation verification test. Therefore, it is preferable that the date is not identified and displayed as a mismatch point. Therefore, the mask creating unit 522 creates a mask image for masking a portion where the user allows mismatch.

  FIG. 26 shows an example of such a mask image 570. As shown in the drawing, the part corresponding to the date is designated as a mask range 572. This mask range can be designated by the user himself / herself via the user designation receiving unit 520. For example, the mask range is specified by surrounding a portion on the comparison result image 560 where the test result may be different using a pointer or a mouse. When the mask range is designated by the user, the mask creation unit 522 creates those mask ranges as one mask image. The comparison result creation unit applies the mask image to the comparison result image when comparing the test results from the next time onward, and displays the portion corresponding to the mask range with the identification display removed.

  Examples of the range that the user can tolerate inconsistencies in comparison results, that is, the part that should be specified as the mask range, include the numbers updated daily, statistics such as stock prices, web search results, An image that switches to a mere or a simple decorative image that does not affect the operation of the web page can be considered, but the present invention is not limited to these.

FIG. 27 is a flowchart of the test result comparison process according to the present embodiment.
The test result acquisition unit 512 acquires comparison source data and comparison destination data of the operation verification test from the test result holding unit 152 (S302). The comparison unit 514 compares the comparison source image data with the comparison destination image data, and detects a mismatched portion (S304). The comparison result creation unit 518 checks whether or not there is a mask image in the mask holding unit 516 (S306), and if there is no mask image (N in S306), outputs a comparison result image that identifies and displays the mismatched portion. (S310).

  The mask creation unit 522 inquires of the user whether or not to create a mask image using the comparison result image (S312). When creating a mask (Y in S312), the mask creation unit 522 accepts specification of the mask range by the user. (S314) A mask image is created and saved (S316).

  In S306, if a mask image exists (Y in S306), the comparison result creating unit 518 applies the mask image to the comparison result image (S308), and outputs a post-mask comparison result image with the mask range identification display turned off. (S310).

  As described above, according to the present embodiment, the output result at the time of the web page operation verification test is matched with the past output result, the mismatched portion is identified and displayed, and the screen output is performed. Becomes easier. Further, even when the output of the web page is a PDF file, the comparison is performed after conversion to image data, so that the comparison process can be performed using the same method.

  In addition, by designating as a mask a range in which mismatch between the old and new test result data should be allowed, the mask range can be prevented from being identified and displayed even if the results are different. When the operation verification test is repeated many times, or when the test result covers a plurality of pages, it is possible to reduce the trouble of checking the range where the result is naturally different.

  In the above embodiment, it has been described that the mask image is created based on the range specification by the user. Alternatively, a mask image may be created without user intervention using a difference image between comparison source image data and comparison destination image data. For example, it is assumed that, as a result of comparison between the comparison source image data and the comparison destination image data, it is confirmed by the test engineer that there is no problem other than the portion where the user can allow the mismatch. In this case, the mask creation unit refers to the difference image and creates a mask image by setting a pixel where the difference remains and a predetermined range around it (for example, a range corresponding to one character of text) as the mask range. You may make it do.

  In the above description, the image data of the past test result is used as the comparison source data. However, the present invention is not limited to this. For example, image data of a desired test result may be used as comparison source data to check whether the web page is operating normally.

  Any combination of the above-described reference techniques, embodiments, and modifications is also useful as an embodiment of the present invention. The new embodiment generated by the combination has the effects of the combined reference technology, embodiment, and modification.

  It should be understood by those skilled in the art that the functions to be fulfilled by the constituent elements described in the claims are realized by a single element or a combination of the constituent elements shown in the reference technique, the embodiment, and the modification. is there.

  500 operation verification device, 510 test result comparison unit, 512 test result acquisition unit, 514 comparison unit, 516 mask holding unit, 518 comparison result creation unit, 520 user designation reception unit, 522 mask creation unit, 580 PDF processing unit, 582 PDF File acquisition unit, 584 Security confirmation unit, 586 Imaging unit, 588 Printer driver linkage unit, 590 Clipboard linkage unit.

Claims (6)

An operation verification device that executes a test program for confirming the operation of a web server according to an operation on a web browser that displays a web page,
A process of acquiring a log in which a combination of identification information of an object included in a web page to be checked for operation and data input by a data input operation on the object is recorded, and automatically executing the data input operation Each of these functions is a function in which the described logic is incorporated, and the identification information of the object included in the web page and the identifier specifying the input data in the input data file describing the data input to the object are used as arguments. An operation recording unit for recording an input function in an operation content file;
A program generation unit that generates a test program for reproducing a series of operations executed on the web page by setting a program code combining a call step for calling a function recorded in the operation content file When,
A program execution unit for executing the test program by acquiring input data specified by the identifier from an input data file different from the operation content file and passing the input data to the input function;
A test result holding unit for recording the web page after execution of the test program as test result data;
When the test result data is a PDF (Portable Document Format) file, an imaging unit that generates image image data equivalent to a screen displaying the content of the PDF file;
A comparison unit that compares the previous test result data after execution of the previous test program and the current test result data after execution of the current test program, each imaged by the imaging unit;
A comparison result creation unit that outputs a comparison result image that identifies and displays a mismatched portion detected by the comparison by the comparison unit;
Operation verification apparatus comprising: a.   The operation verification apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the imaging unit selects an imaging method according to a security setting of the PDF file.   The operation verification apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the imaging unit images a PDF file using a printer driver.   The operation verification apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the imaging unit images the PDF file by copying the content of the PDF file to a clipboard. A device that executes a test program for confirming the operation of a web server in response to an operation on a web browser that displays a web page;
A process of acquiring a log in which a combination of identification information of an object included in a web page to be checked for operation and data input by a data input operation on the object is recorded, and automatically executing the data input operation Each of these functions is a function in which the described logic is incorporated, and the identification information of the object included in the web page and the identifier specifying the input data in the input data file describing the data input to the object are used as arguments. An operation recording function that records input functions in an operation content file;
A program generation function for generating a test program for reproducing a series of operations executed on the web page by setting a program code combining a call step for calling a function recorded in the operation content file When,
A program execution function for executing the test program by acquiring input data specified by the identifier from an input data file different from the operation content file and passing the input data to the input function;
A test result holding function for recording the web page after execution of the test program as test result data;
When the test result data is a PDF (Portable Document Format) file, an imaging function for generating image image data equivalent to a screen displaying the content of the PDF file;
A comparison function for comparing the previous test result data after execution of the previous test program and the current test result data after execution of the current test program, each imaged by the imaging function;
A comparison result creation function for outputting a comparison result image that identifies and displays a mismatched portion detected by comparison by the comparison function;
Operation verification program for realizing. An operation verification method executed by a device that executes a test program for confirming an operation of a web server according to an operation on a web browser that displays a web page,
A process of acquiring a log in which a combination of identification information of an object included in a web page to be checked for operation and data input by a data input operation on the object is recorded, and automatically executing the data input operation Each of these functions is a function in which the described logic is incorporated, and the identification information of the object included in the web page and the identifier specifying the input data in the input data file describing the data input to the object are used as arguments. Recording the input function in an operation content file;
Generating a test program for reproducing a series of operations executed on the web page by setting a program code combining a call step for calling a function recorded in the operation content file;
Obtaining the input data specified by the identifier from an input data file different from the operation content file and passing it to the input function, thereby causing the device to execute the test program;
Recording the web page after execution of the test program in a memory as test result data;
When the test result data is a PDF (Portable Document Format) file, generating image data equivalent to a screen displaying the content of the PDF file;
Comparing the previous test result data after execution of the previous test program and the current test result data after execution of the current test program , each imaged in the step of generating the image image data ;
And outputting the comparison result image displayed identifying the detected discrepancy moiety by comparison by the comparing step,
The operation verification method characterized by including.

Images