JP4848266B2 - Software quality evaluation apparatus and method - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a method for quantitatively evaluating the quality of software and grasping the quality state of software, and an apparatus for executing the method.

  In software development, tests that confirm the validity of user requirements (called comprehensive tests, integration tests, system tests, etc.), in addition to functional requirements obtained from users, performance and reliability, It must also be confirmed from the viewpoint of the requirements of software characteristics that should be prepared as software, such as resource usage. Thus, in the validation test, it is necessary to evaluate software from multiple viewpoints.

Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2002-41332 (Patent Document 1) discloses a method for quantitatively evaluating software quality from multiple viewpoints. Here, quality is scored using the test cases and test results, and the quality is evaluated quantitatively.
JP 2002-41332 A

  In general, as one of evaluation indexes in software quality evaluation, there is one that evaluates quality based on how many defects are extracted with respect to the target number of defects. This comes from the idea that defects should exist at a certain density, and not only when there are many defects but also when there are few defects. Less defects may mean that the software quality is good, but conversely the test case quality may be bad. In the latter case, it is necessary to review the contents of the test case and retest. In Patent Document 1, since the quality is evaluated only by the occurrence state of the defect and is not compared with the target number of defect extraction, the evaluation accuracy is insufficient.

  When quality evaluation is performed from multiple viewpoints, the evaluation results are referenced in a matrix format with each viewpoint as an axis. When trying to evaluate by comparing the target with the actual result, it is necessary to set a target value for each intersection of the viewpoint matrix. As the detailed classification of viewpoints (axes) increases, the number of intersections becomes enormous, and it is not realistic to set manually. Hereinafter, “viewpoint” is referred to as “evaluation attribute”, “detailed classification of viewpoint” is referred to as “evaluation item”, and “matrix of each viewpoint” is referred to as “evaluation matrix”.

  The purpose of the present invention is to automatically set a defect extraction target number for each intersection of the evaluation matrix when performing a quantitative quality evaluation of software in a composite manner from a plurality of viewpoints, and based on the defect extraction results for the defect extraction target number It is to provide a software quality evaluation technique that enables quantitative evaluation.

  The above and other objects and novel features of the present invention will be apparent from the description of this specification and the accompanying drawings.

  Of the inventions disclosed in the present application, the outline of typical ones will be briefly described as follows.

  The present invention includes a test case holding unit that holds a test case including the content of a test for software and an evaluation item to be evaluated in the test, an extraction result of a defect after execution of the test case, and an evaluation item corresponding to the defect Basic information to hold the test result holding unit that holds the test results, and the evaluation attributes that serve as the axis of the evaluation matrix when evaluating the target number and quality of defects of the entire target software and the evaluation items belonging to each evaluation attribute A holding unit, a defect extraction target calculation unit that sets the number of defective extraction targets for each intersection of the evaluation matrix, a quality evaluation result holding unit that holds information on quality evaluation results, the defect extraction target calculation unit, and the test results The number of defective extraction targets and test results are acquired from the holding unit, and the target number of defective extractions and the results of defective extraction are compared at each intersection of the evaluation matrix. And a quality evaluation unit that evaluates the quality of the software and outputs the result to the quality evaluation result holding unit, wherein the defect extraction target calculation unit includes the basic information holding unit and the test case holding unit The number of defect extraction targets for the entire software, basic information of evaluation items, and test cases are acquired from the software, and the number of defect extraction targets for each intersection of the evaluation matrix is automatically calculated from the number of test cases corresponding to each evaluation item. It is characterized by this.

  Among the inventions disclosed in the present application, effects obtained by typical ones will be briefly described as follows.

  According to the present invention, by automatically assigning a defect extraction target number for each evaluation item intersection in the evaluation matrix, it is possible to evaluate the quality by comparing the defect extraction target number and the defect extraction results. Highly accurate quality evaluation is possible.

  Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the drawings.

<Overview>
The target number of defect extraction in the entire software is obtained from the scale of the software (LOC) and the defect extraction density (pieces / LOC) set for the software from the status of the organization or project. Therefore, it is possible to easily determine the target number of defective extraction in the entire quality evaluation target software.

  In the present invention, the defect extraction target number is calculated for each evaluation item intersection in the evaluation matrix, and the mechanism is as follows.

  First, as an evaluation viewpoint for a test case, a plurality of evaluation attributes (functional viewpoint, software characteristic viewpoint, etc.) are assigned to one test case. At this time, an evaluation item (function name, software characteristic item name) included in the evaluation attribute is assigned. When a plurality of evaluation items of one evaluation attribute are assigned to one test case, all combinations of the plurality of evaluation items are assigned. After creating all the test cases, the number of test cases is totaled for each intersection of evaluation attributes in the evaluation matrix, and the ratio with the number of test cases in the entire software is calculated. By dividing the above, the number of defective extraction targets for each evaluation item intersection of the evaluation matrix is obtained.

  On the other hand, as in the prior art, the same evaluation items as the test case are set for the defect record according to the contents, thereby setting which intersection of the evaluation matrix the defect corresponds to.

  At the time of quality evaluation, for each evaluation item intersection of the evaluation matrix, evaluation is performed by comparing the defect extraction results against the automatically set defect extraction target number.

  In addition, in the quality evaluation, it is also possible to evaluate in consideration of indexes such as an important defect rate and a remaining defect rate as additional evaluation indexes. In this case, information on whether or not the defect is important and the remaining defect from the previous process is also set in the defect record. The plurality of evaluation indexes are weighted, and the quality is quantified and evaluated for each evaluation item intersection in the evaluation matrix.

  Also, the evaluation result is converted into color shading, ◯ Δ ×, a symbol such as a color, and the like, and is output so that the quality state can be determined at a glance.

<Embodiment>
A. System Configuration FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration example of a software quality evaluation apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention. The software quality evaluation apparatus according to the present embodiment includes a computer system, a quality evaluation apparatus 1 that performs software quality evaluation processing, an input apparatus 2 that includes a keyboard that inputs operation instructions from an operator, and a TFT monitor. And a display device 3 that displays and outputs the processing result of the quality evaluation device 1 and a printing device 4 that includes a laser printer and an inkjet printer and prints and outputs the processing result of the quality evaluation device 1. ing.

  The quality evaluation apparatus 1 includes a test case holding unit 11, a basic information holding unit 12, a test result holding unit 13, an evaluation reference holding unit 14, a defect extraction target calculation unit 15, a quality evaluation unit 16, a quality evaluation result holding unit 17, a symbol A conversion reference holding unit 18 and an evaluation result output unit 19 are included. The quality evaluation apparatus 1 is not limited to this, but as an example, for example, a test case holding unit 11, a basic information holding unit 12, a test result holding unit 13, an evaluation reference holding unit 14, and a quality evaluation result holding The unit 17 and the symbol conversion reference holding unit 18 include holding means such as a hard disk, and the defect extraction target calculation unit 15, the quality evaluation unit 16, and the evaluation result output unit 19 are realized by a program.

  The test case holding unit 11 holds a test case for confirming whether or not there is a defect in the software, and the basic information holding unit 12 includes the number of defect extraction targets, evaluation attributes, Hold evaluation items.

  The test result holding unit 13 holds test results including defect extraction information after execution of a test case, information about the evaluation items, and additional evaluation indexes, and the evaluation reference holding unit 14 is used for scoring software quality. Keep the standards.

  The defect extraction target calculation unit 15 acquires the test case from the test case holding unit 11 and information that is the basis for calculating the number of defect extraction targets from the basic information holding unit 12, and the defect extraction target for each evaluation item intersection in the evaluation matrix. Calculate the number.

  The quality evaluation unit 16 holds the number of defect extraction targets for each evaluation item intersection in the evaluation matrix from the defect extraction target calculation unit 15, the defect extraction result value from the test result holding unit 13, and the evaluation standard for evaluation when the score is obtained The quality evaluation value is obtained by scoring from the unit 14, and the calculation result is recorded in the quality evaluation holding unit 17.

  The quality evaluation result holding unit 17 holds a quality evaluation value as a result of evaluating the quality, the symbol conversion reference holding unit 18 holds the relationship between the quality evaluation value and the symbol, and the evaluation result output unit 19 receives the quality evaluation value. A process of acquiring a value from the quality evaluation holding unit 17 and a symbol conversion reference from the symbol conversion reference holding unit 18, converting the quality evaluation value into a symbol, and displaying it on the display device 3 or printing it on the printing device 4. Do.

  FIG. 2 shows an example of the data structure of the test case holding unit 11 and its set value. The test case includes a test case ID 111 for making the test case unique, a test content 112 executed in the test case, an evaluation item ID α 113 indicating an evaluation item for each attribute evaluated by the test, and an evaluation item ID β 114. Here, evaluation attributes and evaluation items will be described. The evaluation attribute is the content that becomes the axis of the evaluation matrix when software is evaluated, and specifically includes “function” and “software characteristics”. The evaluation items belong to the lower level of the evaluation attribute. If “function”, there are “payment function” and “withdrawal function”, and “software characteristics” include “reliability” and “maintainability”. The data structure of the evaluation attribute table holding this information is shown in FIG.

  The evaluation attribute table shown in FIG. 3 includes an evaluation attribute 122, an evaluation attribute ID 121 attached to the evaluation attribute 122, an evaluation item 124, and an evaluation item ID 123 attached thereto. As described above, one evaluation attribute has a plurality of evaluation items. In FIG. 2, if a plurality of evaluation items in one evaluation attribute are applicable to one test case, a plurality of records are defined for each evaluation item. Moreover, although this Embodiment is an example using two types of evaluation attributes, you may use two or more types of evaluation attributes. In that case, evaluation attributes and evaluation items are added as rows in FIG. 3, and evaluation item IDs are added as columns in FIG.

  3 and 4 show examples of the data structure of the basic information holding unit 12 and its set values. FIG. 3 is as described above. Here, FIG. 4 will be described. In the basic information table, the target number of defects extracted for the entire software to be evaluated is held. In this embodiment, the target software scale 125, which is the basis of the calculation, and the defect extraction per scale determined by the organization or project. It is held in a data structure broken down into Equation 126. By multiplying these values, it is possible to easily obtain the target number of defective extraction in the entire software. In the example of FIG. 4, the unit of KLOC is used for the scale of software and the number of defects / KLOC is used for the number of defective extractions per scale, but this is not a limitation.

  FIG. 5 shows an example of the data structure of the test result holding unit 13 and its set value. The test result includes a defect content 131, a test case ID 132 of the test case in which the defect has occurred, an evaluation item ID α 133 and an evaluation item ID β 134 for setting an evaluation item to which the defect belongs, and a defect importance 135 as an additional quality evaluation index. And a remaining defect 136. The arrangement order of the evaluation item ID α and the evaluation item ID β is the same as that shown in FIG. When two or more kinds of evaluation attributes are assigned to the test case, this structure is also matched with the structure in the test case.

  Regarding the additional quality evaluation index, in this embodiment, the defect importance level and the remaining defect are set. However, the present invention is not limited to these indices, and when other indices are used, the structure is adjusted accordingly. Form. Here, for example, a value obtained by ranking the influence of the defect, etc., is set for the defect importance, and information such as whether the defect has existed before the previous process is set for the remaining defect. Quantitative evaluation of quality considering these indicators is possible.

  6 and 7 show an example of the data structure of the evaluation criterion holding unit 14 and its set value. The evaluation criteria in FIG. 6 are a table composed of a condition 141 for scoring the degree of deviation between the number of defect extraction targets and the defect extraction result, and a score 142 at that time, and an important defect rate as an additional quality evaluation index. There are a table consisting of a condition 143 for scoring the value of, and a score 144 at that time, a table 145 for scoring the value of the remaining defective rate, and a table consisting of the score 146 at that time. In this embodiment, an important failure rate and a remaining failure rate are set as additional evaluation indexes. However, when the evaluation indexes are further added / changed, the evaluation reference table is added / changed accordingly.

  7 includes each evaluation index 147 to be considered when scoring the quality, and a weighting coefficient 148 for weighting the score of each evaluation index.

  FIG. 8 shows an example of the data structure of the quality evaluation result holding unit 17 and its set value. The quality evaluation result includes an evaluation item ID α 171 and an evaluation item ID β 172, and an evaluation score 173 for storing an evaluation value evaluated by the quality evaluation unit 16 for each evaluation item intersection of the evaluation matrix. The order in which the evaluation item ID α and the evaluation attribute to which the evaluation item ID β belongs is aligned with that in FIG. When a test case has two or more types of evaluation attributes, this structure is also matched with the structure in the test case.

  FIG. 9 shows an example of the data structure of the symbol conversion reference holding unit 18 and its set value. The symbol conversion standard has a lower limit value 181 and an upper limit value 182 that hold a threshold value of an evaluation score when symbolizing, and a display symbol 183 at that time. In the present embodiment, the display symbol 183 is set in shades of color, but when a character is used as the symbol, the character or character code may be set. In addition, when colors and shades are used, RGB values of colors may be set.

B. Description of Processing The processing of the defect extraction target calculation unit 15 in FIG. 1 will be described in detail with reference to FIG. The defect extraction target calculation unit 15 reads the test case information from the test case holding unit 11 (step 151). Next, 1 is added as the quantity of test cases set at the place to the corresponding place of the evaluation item intersection of the evaluation matrix constituted by the axes of the evaluation item ID α and the evaluation item ID β for each record. This is executed for all test case records (step 152). Next, the number of test case records is counted as the number of all test cases (step 153). Next, the test case ratio is calculated by dividing the number of test cases set for each evaluation item intersection in the evaluation matrix by the number of all test cases (step 154).

  Thereafter, the size of software and the number of defects extracted per scale are read from the basic information holding unit 12 (step 155). Next, the target number of defects extracted for the entire software is calculated from the size of the software and the number of defects extracted per scale (step 156).

  Finally, the test case ratio calculated for each evaluation item intersection in the evaluation matrix is multiplied by the defect extraction target number of the entire software, and the defect extraction target number is calculated for each evaluation item intersection in the evaluation matrix.

  The processing of the quality evaluation unit 16 in FIG. 1 will be described in detail with reference to FIG. The quality evaluation unit 16 reads defect extraction record information from the test result holding unit 13 (step 161). Next, 1 is added to the corresponding place of the evaluation item intersection of the evaluation matrix for each record as the number of defects set at that place. In addition, when an additional evaluation index corresponds to an important defect or a remaining defect, 1 is added as the quantity of each. This is executed for all defective extraction records (steps 162 and 163).

  Next, the defect extraction target number for each evaluation item intersection of the evaluation matrix is acquired from the defect extraction target calculation unit 15 (step 164). Next, for each evaluation item intersection in the evaluation matrix, the number of defective extraction results is divided by the target number of defective extraction to determine the degree of divergence of the defects (step 165). Further, an important failure rate and a remaining failure rate, which are additional evaluation indexes, are also obtained (step 166).

  Thereafter, evaluation standard information and calculation standard information are read from the evaluation standard holding unit 14 (step 167). Next, the degree of divergence calculated for each evaluation item intersection in the evaluation matrix, the important failure rate, and the remaining failure rate are compared with the evaluation reference information of each index to obtain the evaluation score of each index (step 168). Further, considering the weighting information of each index acquired from the calculation reference information, the final evaluation score at the evaluation item intersection of the evaluation matrix is obtained (step 169). Finally, the obtained evaluation score is stored in the quality evaluation result holding unit 17 (step 16A).

  The processing of the evaluation result output unit 19 in FIG. 1 will be described in detail with reference to FIG. The evaluation result output unit 19 reads the evaluation score from the quality evaluation result holding unit 17 (step 191). Next, an evaluation matrix is created, and the evaluation score is assigned to each evaluation item intersection (step 192). Here, when two or more types of evaluation attributes serving as the axis of the evaluation matrix are assigned, an evaluation matrix is created for each combination of the two types of evaluation attributes. In this case, the score of each new intersection is calculated as a simple average of the scores of the data read in step 191 that match the two-axis evaluation attribute of the evaluation matrix and the evaluation item ID.

  Next, the symbol conversion standard is read from the symbol conversion standard holding unit 18 (step 193). Thereafter, the score is symbolized against the symbol conversion criterion (step 194). Finally, the symbolized quality evaluation result is output to the display device 3 or the printing device 4 (step 195).

  FIG. 13 shows a specific data state along the processing flow. The test case creation number 1201 is an evaluation matrix that holds the number of test cases for each evaluation item intersection. The basic information 1202 is the data structure of the basic information holding unit 12. The defect extraction target 1203 is an evaluation matrix that holds the number of defect extraction targets automatically calculated by the defect extraction target calculation unit 15.

  The defect extraction count 1204A is an evaluation matrix in which the defect extraction count is tabulated for each evaluation item intersection. The important defect rate 1204B is an evaluation matrix in which an important defect rate is calculated for each evaluation item intersection. The remaining defective rate 1204C is an evaluation matrix in which the remaining defective rate is calculated for each evaluation item intersection. The evaluation standard 1205A is a table that records the condition and score of the degree of deviation from the defect extraction target. The evaluation standard 1205B is a table in which the condition and score of the important defect rate are recorded. The evaluation criterion 1205C is a table that records the remaining defect rate conditions and scores.

  The calculation standard 1206 is a table that records the weighting conditions for each index. An evaluation result (score) 1207 is an evaluation matrix scored from each evaluation index for each evaluation item intersection held in the quality evaluation holding unit 17. The symbol conversion reference 1208 is a symbol conversion reference held in the symbol conversion reference holding unit 18. An evaluation result (symbol) 1209 is an evaluation result evaluation matrix output to the evaluation result output unit 19.

  According to this embodiment, by automatically assigning the number of defective extraction targets for each evaluation item intersection in the evaluation matrix, it is possible to evaluate the quality by comparing the number of defective extraction targets and the result of defective extraction. And high-quality quality evaluation. In addition, the quality can be scored by comprehensively considering a plurality of evaluation indexes, so that the quality can be grasped with higher accuracy. Moreover, it becomes easy to grasp the density of quality at a glance at each evaluation item intersection of the evaluation matrix.

  As mentioned above, the invention made by the present inventor has been specifically described based on the embodiment. However, the present invention is not limited to the embodiment, and various modifications can be made without departing from the scope of the invention. Needless to say.

  The present invention can be used for a quality evaluation method and a quality evaluation system for performing software quality evaluation.

It is a block diagram which shows the example of 1 structure of the software quality evaluation apparatus in one embodiment of this invention. It is the figure which showed the example of the data structure of the test case holding | maintenance part in one embodiment of this invention, and its setting value. It is the figure which showed the example of the data structure of the basic information holding part (evaluation attribute table) in one embodiment of this invention, and its setting value. It is the figure which showed the example of the data structure of the basic information holding part (basic information table) in one embodiment of this invention, and its setting value. It is the figure which showed the example of the data structure of the test result holding | maintenance part in one embodiment of this invention, and its setting value. It is the figure which showed the example of the data structure of the evaluation criteria holding | maintenance part (evaluation criteria table) in one embodiment of this invention, and its setting value. It is the figure which showed the example of the data structure of the evaluation reference | standard holding | maintenance part (calculation reference | standard table) in one embodiment of this invention, and its setting value. It is the figure which showed the example of the data structure of the quality evaluation result holding | maintenance part in one embodiment of this invention, and its setting value. It is the figure which showed the example of the data structure of the symbol conversion reference | standard holding | maintenance part in one embodiment of this invention, and its setting value. It is a figure explaining the process of the defect extraction target calculation part in one embodiment of this invention. It is a figure explaining the process of the quality evaluation part in one embodiment of this invention. It is a figure explaining the process of the evaluation result output part in one embodiment of this invention. It is the figure which showed the state of the concrete data along the flow of the process in one embodiment of this invention.

Explanation of symbols

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 ... Quality evaluation apparatus, 2 ... Input device, 3 ... Display apparatus, 4 ... Printing apparatus, 11 ... Test case holding part, 12 ... Basic information holding part, 13 ... Test result holding part, 14 ... Evaluation reference holding part, 15 Defect extraction target calculation unit, 16 ... Quality evaluation unit, 17 ... Quality evaluation result holding unit, 18 ... Symbol conversion reference holding unit, 19 ... Evaluation result output unit,
111 ... Test case ID, 112 ... Test content, 113 ... Evaluation item ID α, 114 ... Evaluation item ID β,
121 ... Evaluation attribute ID, 122 ... Evaluation attribute, 123 ... Evaluation item ID, 124 ... Evaluation item,
125 ... the scale of the software, 126 ... the number of defective extraction per scale,
131: Defect content, 132: Test case ID, 133: Evaluation item ID α, 134: Evaluation item ID β, 135: Defect importance, 136: Remaining defect,
141 ... Defect extraction target divergence condition, 142 ... Score (defect extraction target divergence degree), 143 ... Important defect rate condition, 144 ... Score (important defect rate), 145 ... Residual defect rate condition, 146 ... Score (residual defect rate) ),
147 ... Evaluation index, 148 ... Weighting factor,
171 ... Evaluation item ID α, 172 ... Evaluation item ID β, 173 ... Evaluation score,
181 ... Symbol conversion reference lower limit value, 182 ... Symbol conversion reference upper limit value, 183 ... Display symbol,
1201 ... Number of test cases created, 1202 ... Basic information (basic information table), 1203 ... Evaluation matrix (number of defects extracted) 1204A ... Evaluation matrix (number of defects extracted) 1204B ... Evaluation matrix (important defect rate), 1204C ... Evaluation matrix (remaining defect rate), 1205A ... evaluation criteria (defect extraction number deviation degree), 1205B ... evaluation criteria (important failure rate), 1205C ... evaluation criteria (residual failure rate), 1206 ... evaluation criteria, 1207 ... evaluation results ( Score), 1208 ... symbol conversion criteria, 1209 ... evaluation result (symbol).

Claims (6)

A test case holding unit for holding a test case including a content of a test for software and an evaluation item to be evaluated in the test;
A test result holding unit for holding a test result including a defect extraction result after execution of the test case and an evaluation item corresponding to the defect;
A basic information holding unit that holds evaluation attribute that is an axis of an evaluation matrix when evaluating the target number and quality of defects of the entire target software, and evaluation items belonging to each evaluation attribute;
A defect extraction target calculation unit that sets a defect extraction target number for each intersection of the evaluation matrix;
A quality evaluation result holding unit for holding information on the quality evaluation result;
From the defect extraction target calculation unit and the test result holding unit, the number of defect extraction targets and test results are obtained, and the quality of the software is evaluated by comparing the number of defect extraction targets and the defect extraction results for each intersection of the evaluation matrix. A software quality evaluation apparatus having a quality evaluation unit that outputs an evaluation result to the quality evaluation result holding unit,
The defect extraction target calculation unit obtains the number of defect extraction targets and basic information of the evaluation items and test cases in the entire software from the basic information holding unit and the test case holding unit, and the test cases corresponding to each evaluation item A software quality evaluation apparatus characterized by automatically calculating a defect extraction target number for each intersection of the evaluation matrix from the number of points. The software quality evaluation apparatus according to claim 1,
The test result holding unit holds a value of an additional evaluation index for each test result,
Furthermore, it has an evaluation standard holding unit that holds a standard for quantifying the quality evaluation result based on the comparison result between the number of defective extraction targets and the result of defective extraction and the value of the evaluation index,
The quality evaluation unit obtains a standard for quantifying the evaluation result from the evaluation standard holding unit, evaluates the quality of the software based on the standard for each intersection of the evaluation matrix, and evaluates the evaluation result. A software quality evaluation apparatus that outputs the result to the quality evaluation result holding unit. In the software quality evaluation apparatus according to claim 1 or 2,
Furthermore, a symbol conversion standard holding unit that holds a symbol conversion standard for converting the quality evaluation result into a symbol corresponding to the range of numerical values that are the quality evaluation results of the software,
An evaluation result output unit that acquires numerical information of a quality evaluation result from the quality evaluation result holding unit, acquires a symbol conversion condition from the symbol conversion reference holding unit, converts the numerical information into a symbol, and outputs the symbol Software quality evaluation device characterized by Using a computer system,
A defect extraction target calculating step for setting the number of defect extraction targets for each intersection of the evaluation matrix when evaluating the quality of the software;
A test result including a defect extraction result after test case execution and an evaluation item corresponding to the defect is acquired from the test result holding unit, and the test result and the number of defect extraction targets set in the defect extraction target calculation step are obtained. Software quality evaluation for evaluating the quality of software by comparing the defect extraction target number and defect extraction results at each intersection of the evaluation matrix, and executing the quality evaluation step of outputting the evaluation result to the quality evaluation result holding unit A method,
In the defect extraction target calculation step, the basic information of evaluation items that are the axis of the evaluation matrix and the evaluation items belonging to each evaluation attribute are acquired from the basic information holding unit and the number of defect extraction targets in the entire software, and the evaluation matrix when evaluating quality. A test case including the content of the test for the software and the evaluation items to be evaluated in the test from the test case holding unit, and the defect extraction target for each intersection of the evaluation matrix from the number of test cases corresponding to each evaluation item A software quality evaluation method characterized by automatically calculating a number. The software quality evaluation method according to claim 4, wherein
In the quality evaluation step, a value of an additional evaluation index is obtained for each test result from the test result holding unit, and a comparison result between the number of defective extraction targets and the defective extraction result is obtained from the evaluation reference holding unit and the evaluation index The standard for quantifying the quality evaluation result based on the value is acquired, the quality of the software is quantified and evaluated based on the standard for each intersection of the evaluation matrix, and the evaluation result is stored in the quality evaluation result holding unit. A software quality evaluation method characterized by: The software quality evaluation method according to claim 4 or 5,
Obtain numerical information of the quality evaluation result from the quality evaluation result holding unit, and obtain a symbol conversion standard for converting the quality evaluation result into a symbol corresponding to the range of numerical values as the software quality evaluation result from the symbol conversion reference holding unit And executing an evaluation result outputting step of converting the numerical information into a symbol and outputting the symbol.

Images