A Software Performance Evaluation Method, Apparatus, Device, and Readable Storage Medium

Abstract

The present invention provides a software performance evaluation method, device, equipment and readable storage medium, which relates to the technical field of software testing. It includes displaying a first object in a first area of a display interface. The first object includes at least two second objects. Each second object includes a first sub-object and a second sub-object. Each second object is arranged vertically in sequence, and the first sub-object and the second sub-object are arranged horizontally in sequence. The second sub-object includes a selection window for selecting the first sub-object; obtaining a first selection operation, the first selection operation includes a selection operation on the second sub-object in the second object; in response to the first selection operation, a third object is displayed in a second area of the display interface. The third object includes a performance score of the software to be evaluated obtained during the design and development stage, assisting software developers to timely discover short boards during the software design and development stage and analyze the urgency of carrying out performance and high-availability tests on the system to be evaluated.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of software testing, and in particular, to a software performance evaluation method, apparatus, device, and readable storage medium. Background Art

[0002] Performance and high-availability tests implemented entirely through technical means are located in the later stage of the software development life cycle, while the introduction of problems and defects often stems from the design and development stage. This mode results in extremely high repair costs for problems discovered in the performance and high-availability test stage, with a great investment from development and testing personnel, seriously affecting the implementation cycle and delivery efficiency of the software system. However, it is not currently applied to the design and development stage. Summary of the Invention

[0003] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a software performance evaluation method, apparatus, device, and readable storage medium to improve the above problems. To achieve the above purpose, the technical solutions adopted by the present invention are as follows:

[0004] In a first aspect, the present application provides a software performance evaluation method, including:

[0005] Display a first object in a first area of the display interface. The first object includes at least two second objects. Each second object includes a first sub-object and a second sub-object. Each second object is arranged vertically in sequence. The first sub-object and the second sub-object are arranged horizontally in sequence. The second sub-object includes a selection window for selecting the first sub-object;

[0006] Obtain a first selection operation, where the first selection operation includes a selection operation on the second sub-object in the second object;

[0007] In response to the first selection operation, display a third object in a second area of the display interface. The third object includes a performance score of the software to be evaluated obtained through calculation in the design and development stage.

[0008] Further, the step of "in response to the first selection operation, display a third object in a second area of the display interface. The third object includes a performance score of the software to be evaluated obtained through calculation in the design and development stage" includes:

[0009] Sequentially determine the object selected by the first selection operation. If the second sub-object is selected, obtain first information, where the first information is the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation score is a first preset value;

[0010] Establish a credibility adjustment mathematical model based on all the first information, and solve the credibility adjustment mathematical model to obtain the updated first information;

[0011] Based on the calculation of all the above-mentioned first information, the performance score of the software to be evaluated in the design and development stage is obtained.

[0012] Furthermore, the establishment of a credibility adjustment mathematical model based on all the above-mentioned first information and the solution of the credibility adjustment mathematical model to obtain the updated first information includes:

[0013] Obtain the second information, where the second information includes the number of occurrences of each of the first sub-objects in the software development records each year within a preset number of years, and the software development records are the development records of all software within a historical time period;

[0014] Based on the second information corresponding to each of the first sub-objects, establish a credibility calculation mathematical formula for each of the first sub-objects, and solve the credibility calculation mathematical formula to obtain the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object;

[0015] Based on the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, calculate the evaluation score after credibility adjustment, and update the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object to the evaluation score after credibility adjustment.

[0016] Furthermore, the establishment of a credibility adjustment mathematical model based on all the above-mentioned first information and the solution of the credibility adjustment mathematical model to obtain the updated first information includes:

[0017] Obtain the third information, where the third information includes the application service type of the software to be evaluated, and the application service type includes business transaction type or management analysis type or regulatory reporting type or operation management type;

[0018] Obtain the evaluation item attention factor table, where the evaluation item attention factor table is the evaluation item attention factor corresponding to each of the first sub-objects under different application service types;

[0019] Based on the evaluation item attention factor table and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, calculate the evaluation score after evaluation item attention factor adjustment, and update the evaluation score corresponding to each of the first sub-objects to the evaluation score after evaluation item attention factor adjustment.

[0020] Furthermore, the calculation based on all the above-mentioned first information to obtain the performance score of the software to be evaluated in the design and development stage includes:

[0021] Obtain the fourth information, where the fourth information includes the evaluation dimension corresponding to each of the first sub-objects, and the evaluation dimension includes application performance or database design or batch processing design or high availability design or reliability design;

[0022] Obtain a dimension attention factor table, where the dimension attention factor table is the dimension attention factors corresponding to different evaluation dimensions under different application service types;

[0023] According to the dimension attention factor table, the evaluation dimension corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, calculate the performance score of the software to be evaluated in the design and development stage.

[0024] Further, in response to the first selection operation, display a third object in the second area of the display interface. The third object includes the calculated performance score situation of the software to be evaluated. After that, it further includes:

[0025] Display a fourth object in the second area of the display interface. The fourth object includes at least one fifth object and at least one sixth object. Each fifth object includes at least two third sub-objects, and each third sub-object is arranged horizontally in sequence. Each sixth object includes at least five fourth sub-objects, and each fourth sub-object is arranged horizontally in sequence;

[0026] Obtain a first filling operation, where the first filling operation includes filling the evaluation item information and the evaluation dimension information corresponding to the evaluation item information into two of the third sub-objects in the fifth object respectively;

[0027] Obtain a second filling operation, where the second filling operation includes filling the evaluation item information, the evaluation item attention factor of this evaluation item under the business transaction category, the evaluation item attention factor of this evaluation item under the management analysis category, the evaluation item attention factor of this evaluation item under the regulatory reporting category, and the evaluation item attention factor of this evaluation item under the operation management category into each fourth sub-object in the sixth object respectively;

[0028] Add the third sub-object filled with the evaluation item information in the fifth object to the blank second object, and add all the sixth objects to the evaluation item attention factor table.

[0029] In a second aspect, the present application also provides a software performance evaluation device, including:

[0030] A display unit for displaying a first object in the first area of the display interface. The first object includes at least two second objects. Each second object includes a first sub-object and a second sub-object. Each second object is arranged vertically in sequence, and the first sub-object and the second sub-object are arranged horizontally in sequence. The second sub-object includes a selection window for selecting the first sub-object;

[0031] A first acquisition unit, configured to acquire a first selection operation, where the first selection operation includes a selection operation on the second sub-object in the second object;

[0032] A first response unit, configured to, in response to the first selection operation, display a third object in a second area of a display interface, where the third object includes a performance score of the software to be evaluated obtained by calculation during a design and development phase.

[0033] Further, the first response unit includes:

[0034] A first determination unit, configured to sequentially determine the object selected by the first selection operation. If the second sub-object is selected, first information is acquired, where the first information is an evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation score is a first preset value;

[0035] A first calculation unit, configured to establish a credibility adjustment mathematical model according to all the first information, and solve the credibility adjustment mathematical model to obtain updated first information;

[0036] A total score calculation unit, configured to calculate according to all the first information to obtain a performance score of the software to be evaluated during a design and development phase.

[0037] Further, the first calculation unit includes:

[0038] A second acquisition unit, configured to acquire second information, where the second information includes the number of occurrences of the first sub-object in the software development record each year within a preset number of years, and the software development record is the development records of all software within a historical time period;

[0039] A first sub-calculation unit, configured to establish a credibility calculation mathematical formula corresponding to each first sub-object based on the second information corresponding to each first sub-object, and solve the credibility calculation mathematical formula to obtain a credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object;

[0040] A second sub-calculation unit, configured to calculate a credibility-adjusted evaluation score according to the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and update the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object to the credibility-adjusted evaluation score.

[0041] Further, the first calculation unit includes:

[0042] A third acquisition unit, configured to acquire third information, where the third information includes the application service type of the software to be evaluated, and the application service type includes business transaction type or management analysis type or regulatory reporting type or operation management type;

[0043] A fourth acquisition unit, configured to acquire an evaluation item attention factor table, where the evaluation item attention factor table is the evaluation item attention factors corresponding to each of the first sub-objects under different application service types;

[0044] A third sub-computation unit, configured to calculate an adjusted evaluation score of the evaluation item attention factor according to the evaluation item attention factor table and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and update the evaluation score corresponding to each of the first sub-objects to the adjusted evaluation score of the evaluation item attention factor.

[0045] Further, the total score calculation unit includes:

[0046] A fifth acquisition unit, configured to acquire fourth information, where the fourth information includes the evaluation dimensions corresponding to each of the first sub-objects, and the evaluation dimensions include application performance or database design or batch processing design or high-availability design or reliability design;

[0047] A sixth acquisition unit, configured to acquire a dimension attention factor table, where the dimension attention factor table is the dimension attention factors corresponding to different evaluation dimensions under different application service types;

[0048] A fourth sub-computation unit, configured to calculate a performance score of the software under evaluation in the design and development stage according to the dimension attention factor table, the evaluation dimension corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object.

[0049] Further, the software performance evaluation device further includes:

[0050] An operation and maintenance unit, configured to display a fourth object in a second area of a display interface, where the fourth object includes at least one fifth object and at least one sixth object, each of the fifth objects includes at least two third sub-objects, each of the third sub-objects is arranged horizontally in sequence, each of the sixth objects includes at least five fourth sub-objects, and each of the fourth sub-objects is arranged horizontally in sequence;

[0051] A seventh acquisition unit, configured to acquire a first filling operation, where the first filling operation includes filling evaluation item information and evaluation dimension information corresponding to the evaluation item information into two of the third sub-objects in the fifth object respectively;

[0052] An eighth acquisition unit, configured to acquire a second filling operation, where the second filling operation includes filling evaluation item information, the evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the business transaction category, the evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the management analysis category, the evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the regulatory reporting category, and the evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the operation and management category into each of the fourth sub-objects in the sixth object respectively;

[0053] The first adding unit is configured to add the third sub-object filled with the evaluation item information in the fifth object to the blank second object, and add all the sixth objects to the evaluation item attention factor table.

[0054] In a third aspect, the present application further provides a software performance evaluation device, including:

[0055] A memory for storing a computer program;

[0056] A processor for implementing the steps of the software performance evaluation method when executing the computer program.

[0057] In a fourth aspect, the present application further provides a readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the above-mentioned software performance evaluation method are implemented.

[0058] The beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows:

[0059] This method integrates the historical performance data in the production, development, and testing stages, combines the business and technical requirements of the system to be evaluated, and automatically generates the system performance evaluation results, enabling the system to be evaluated to understand the system performance and high-availability shortboards during the development stage, as well as the problem risks that may be caused by the corresponding shortboards, and guiding developers to improve the quality of system design and development.

[0060] Other features and advantages of the present invention will be described in the subsequent description, and some of them will become obvious from the description, or be understood by implementing the embodiments of the present invention. The objectives and other advantages of the present invention can be achieved and obtained through the structures specifically pointed out in the written description, claims, and drawings. Description of the Drawings

[0061] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, the following will briefly introduce the drawings required in the embodiments. It should be understood that the following drawings only show some embodiments of the present invention, and therefore should not be regarded as limiting the scope. For those of ordinary skill in the art, other related drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative efforts.

[0062] Figure 1 It is a schematic flowchart of the software performance evaluation method described in the embodiments of the present invention;

[0063] Figure 2 It is the evaluation item attention factor table described in the embodiments of the present invention;

[0064] Figure 3It is the attention factor table of the evaluation dimension described in the embodiment of the present invention;

[0065] Figure 4 It is the schematic structural diagram of the software performance evaluation device described in the embodiment of the present invention;

[0066] Figure 5 It is the schematic structural diagram of the software performance evaluation device described in the embodiment of the present invention. Detailed implementation manners

[0067] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are some, but not all, of the embodiments of the present invention. Components of the embodiments of the present invention described and illustrated herein generally can be arranged and designed in a variety of different configurations. Therefore, the detailed description of the embodiments of the present invention provided herein is not intended to limit the scope of the claimed invention, but merely represents selected embodiments of the present invention. All other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without creative efforts fall within the protection scope of the present invention.

[0068] It should be noted that: like reference numerals and letters denote like items in the following figures, and thus, once an item is defined in one figure, it does not need to be further defined and explained in subsequent figures. At the same time, in the description of the present invention, the terms "first", "second", etc. are only used for descriptive distinction and cannot be understood as indicating or implying relative importance.

[0069] Embodiment 1:

[0070] This embodiment provides a software performance evaluation method.

[0071] Refer to Figure 1 , the figure shows that this method includes step S100, step S200, step S300, step S400, step S500, step S600, step S700, step S800, and step S900.

[0072] S100. Display a first object in the first area of the display interface. The first object includes at least two second objects. Each second object includes a first sub-object and a second sub-object. Each second object is arranged vertically in sequence, and the first sub-object and the second sub-object are arranged horizontally in sequence. The second sub-object includes a selection window for selecting the first sub-object;

[0073] It can be understood that the display interface mentioned in this step is the display interface that the person in charge of the software system development being evaluated this time will face. Among them, the first object is the software evaluation list, each second object is each evaluation content of the software evaluation list, the content of the first sub-object is the evaluation item, and the second sub-object is the check box. If it is selected, it means that the evaluation item content described by the first object appears in the software system being evaluated.

[0074] It should be noted that the evaluation items in this method are the reasons for the problems encountered in the software development history of the company or group where the user is located, including the software development history of all types of software.

[0075] The software development history includes historical performance data in the production, development, and testing stages. For the sake of easy understanding, the specific content of several evaluation items is demonstrated in this step:

[0076] 1. Does the large data volume query operation have a paging query or return count control mechanism?

[0077] 2. The batch transaction adopts an asynchronous processing mechanism.

[0078] 3. Avoid unnecessary DISTINCE\ORDER BY\GROUP BY\UNION, reduce sorting operations, and eliminate unnecessary sorting predicates.

[0079] S200. Obtain the first selection operation, and the first selection operation includes the selection operation for the second sub-object in the second object.

[0080] It can be understood that in this step, the person in charge of the software system development determines the content of the evaluation item. If the content described by the evaluation item appears in the software being evaluated this time, it needs to be checked.

[0081] It should be noted that in this step, the person in charge of the software system development can check one or more evaluation items.

[0082] S300. In response to the first selection operation, display the third object in the second area of the display interface. The third object includes the performance score of the software being evaluated in the design and development stage calculated.

[0083] It can be understood that in this step, during the software system development process, after the person in charge checks, the performance score of the software being evaluated in the design and development stage is directly displayed.

[0084] This method integrates the historical performance data in the production, development, and testing phases, automatically generates the evaluation data of the system performance and high-availability capabilities, enables the system to be evaluated to understand the performance and high-availability shortboards of the system, as well as the problem risks that may be caused by the corresponding shortboards, and guides developers to improve the quality of system design and development.

[0085] To implement the content of this step, in this embodiment, it includes step S310, step S320, and step S330.

[0086] S310. Sequentially judge the objects selected by the first selection operation. If the second sub-object is selected, obtain the first information, where the first information is the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation score is the first preset value.

[0087] It should be noted that the first preset value in this step is 1.

[0088] It can be understood that if there are multiple second sub-objects selected, there should be multiple first preset values.

[0089] S320. Establish a credibility adjustment mathematical model based on all the first information, and solve the credibility adjustment mathematical model to obtain the updated first information.

[0090] It should be noted that the selection of the first sub-object is a subjective choice of the person in charge of software system development. Therefore, this step corrects each first information.

[0091] To achieve the above technical purpose, this step further includes step S321, step S322, and step S323.

[0092] S321. Obtain the second information, where the second information includes the number of occurrences of the first sub-object in the software development records each year within the preset number of years, and the software development records are the development records of all software within the historical time period.

[0093] It should be noted that the preset number of years mentioned in this step is 5 years. Those skilled in the art can select other years according to the environment used, and no specific limitation is made in this application.

[0094] S322. Establish a credibility calculation mathematical formula corresponding to each first sub-object based on the second information corresponding to each first sub-object, and solve the credibility calculation mathematical formula to obtain the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object.

[0095] It should be noted that in this step, it is calculated through the following formula:

[0096]

[0097] Among them, c represents the credibility factor; a represents whether there is such a production problem in the corresponding year. If there is, the value is 1; if not, the value is 0; x is the basic attenuation parameter set manually, and the current setting is 0.05; n represents the time range for searching production problems, and the current setting is within 5 years; k represents the year difference between the current year and the year when the production problem is found.

[0098] Among them, for x and n, those skilled in the art can select other contents. In this step, only a test environment suitable for our company is provided.

[0099] For the convenience of understanding, a demonstration example is given in this step:

[0100] Taking a certain system that has only had a certain type of evaluation item this year as an example, calculate c = 1 - 0.05, that is, 0.95;

[0101] Taking a certain system that has had a certain type of evaluation item both this year and last year as an example, calculate c = 1 - 0.05 - 0.027, that is, 0.923;

[0102] S323. According to the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, calculate the evaluation score after credibility adjustment, and update the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object to the evaluation score after credibility adjustment.

[0103] It can be understood that in S300, one credibility factor corresponds to one first piece of information. It should be noted that in this step, each piece of information is corrected, and each first piece of information corresponds to one credibility factor.

[0104] That is, the score of each evaluation item is calculated through the following formula:

[0105] r = c * v

[0106] Among them, r is the score of the evaluation item, c is the credibility factor, and v is the evaluation score.

[0107] However, in this method, it is also considered that the actual usage environments of each software system are different, and the actual impact of each evaluation item on the performance of the software should be different in different application environments. If the same scoring mechanism for the evaluation items is used, a targeted scoring content cannot be obtained, and the software in different application environments cannot be objectively evaluated.

[0108] Therefore, to solve the above problems, step S320 also includes step S324, step S325, and step S326.

[0109] S324. Obtain the third piece of information. The third piece of information includes the application service type of the software to be evaluated, and the application service type includes business transaction type, management analysis type, regulatory reporting type, or operation management type;

[0110] S325. Obtain the evaluation item attention factor table, where the evaluation item attention factor table is the evaluation item attention factor corresponding to each first sub-object under different application service types;

[0111] See Figure 2 , and a figure shows an evaluation item attention factor table.

[0112] S326. According to the evaluation item attention factor table and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, calculate the adjusted evaluation score of the evaluation item attention factor, and update the evaluation score corresponding to each first sub-object to the adjusted evaluation score of the evaluation item attention factor.

[0113] Specifically, in this step, the adjusted evaluation score of the evaluation item attention factor corresponding to each evaluation item is calculated through the following formula:

[0114] r = c * v * a

[0115] where r is the score of the evaluation item, v is the evaluation score, c is the credibility factor, and a is the evaluation item attention factor.

[0116] S330. Calculate according to all the first information to obtain the performance score of the software to be evaluated in the design and development stage.

[0117] It should be noted that this step is to calculate the software performance score targeted at the software to be evaluated based on the adjusted first information. To achieve the above purpose, this step also includes step S331, step S332, and step S333.

[0118] S331. Obtain the fourth information, where the fourth information includes the evaluation dimension corresponding to each first sub-object, and the evaluation dimension includes application performance or database design or batch processing design or high-availability design or reliability design;

[0119] It should be noted that the evaluation dimension corresponding to the first sub-object mentioned in this step is determined by those skilled in the art according to the content of the first sub-object. And it should also be noted that it should be updated and determined regularly by the maintainers of this method according to the production operation and maintenance situation, the submission situation of test defects, etc.

[0120] S332. Obtain the dimension attention factor table, where the dimension attention factor table is the dimension attention factor corresponding to different evaluation dimensions under different application service types;

[0121] See Figure 3 , and a figure shows a dimension attention factor table.

[0122] S333. Calculate the performance score of the software under evaluation in the design and development stage based on the dimension attention factor table, the evaluation dimensions corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation scores corresponding to the first sub-object.

[0123] Specifically, this step calculates the score for each dimension through the following formula:

[0124] d = (∑r) / (w * 100)

[0125] In the formula, ∑r is the sum of the scores of all evaluation items under this dimension, and w is the dimension attention factor.

[0126] After calculation through the above formula, the score for each dimension on a hundred-point scale can be obtained.

[0127] Then, calculate the software performance score through the following formula:

[0128] s = ∑d

[0129] s is the total score of the software performance score, and ∑d is the sum of the scores of all dimensions.

[0130] At the same time, for the convenience of maintenance personnel to maintain this method, this method also includes S400, S500, S600, S700, and S800.

[0131] S400. Display the fourth object in the second area of the display interface. The fourth object includes at least one fifth object and at least one sixth object. Each fifth object includes at least two third sub-objects, and each third sub-object is arranged horizontally in sequence. Each sixth object includes at least five fourth sub-objects, and each fourth sub-object is arranged horizontally in sequence;

[0132] It can be understood that in this step, the fourth object is the maintenance form for maintenance personnel, the fifth object is the evaluation item input item, and the sixth object is the evaluation item attention factor input item for the evaluation item.

[0133] S500. Obtain the first filling operation. The first filling operation includes filling the evaluation item information and the evaluation dimension information corresponding to the evaluation item information into two third sub-objects in the fifth object respectively;

[0134] S600. Obtain the second filling operation. The second filling operation includes filling the evaluation item information, the evaluation item attention factor of this evaluation item under the business transaction category, the evaluation item attention factor of this evaluation item under the management analysis category, the evaluation item attention factor of this evaluation item under the supervision and reporting category, and the evaluation item attention factor of this evaluation item under the operation and management category into each fourth sub-object in the sixth object respectively;

[0135] It can be understood that in S500 and S600, the maintenance personnel update and iterate the system library of this method.

[0136] S700. Analyze the relationship between each third sub-object and the first sub-object in turn. If the third sub-object has appeared within the first sub-object, delete the third sub-object and add the tag of the repetition times to the corresponding second object in the first object.

[0137] It can be understood that this step is to count whether the scoring items input by the operation and maintenance personnel are repeated and count the repetition times.

[0138] S800. Calculate the evaluation score after version iteration according to the repetition times corresponding to each second object, and update the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object to the evaluation score of version iteration.

[0139] It should be noted that this step is to define the evaluation score through the repetition times of the scoring items. Specifically, this step includes step S810, step S820, step S830, step S840, and step S850.

[0140] S810. If the repetition times are zero, the evaluation score of version iteration is one.

[0141] S820. If the repetition times are greater than or equal to one and less than or equal to three, the evaluation score of version iteration is two.

[0142] S830. If the repetition times are greater than or equal to four and less than or equal to six, the evaluation score of version iteration is three.

[0143] S840. If the repetition times are greater than or equal to seven and less than or equal to nine, the evaluation score of version iteration is four.

[0144] S850. If the repetition times are greater than or equal to ten, the evaluation score of version iteration is five.

[0145] It can be understood that through the above operations, the historical assets are reasonably utilized, and the occurrence frequency of the evaluation content is converted into the corresponding score. And in actual application, if the evaluation content appears more times, it indicates that the probability of finally causing problems is higher, the more it can have an impact on the actual situation, and the final score is higher, which can timely prompt the software system development responsible person through the score which needs to be modified in time.

[0146] S900. Add the third sub-object filled with the evaluation item information in the fifth object to the blank second object, and add all the sixth objects to the evaluation item attention factor table.

[0147] It can be understood that this step is to add the newly input content by the operation and maintenance to the software evaluation list and the evaluation item attention factor table.

[0148] This method integrates historical performance data in the production, development, and testing phases, combines the business and technical requirements of the system to be evaluated, and automatically generates system performance evaluation results, enabling the system to be evaluated to understand the system's performance and high-availability shortcomings during the development phase, as well as the problem risks that may be caused by the corresponding shortcomings, and guiding developers to improve the quality of system design and development.

[0149] During the evaluation process, this method matches a weight strategy that conforms to the characteristics of different types of systems, combines the production operation and maintenance requirements of the system to be evaluated and the performance and high-availability shortcomings found in the evaluation, analyzes the urgency of conducting performance and high-availability tests on the system to be evaluated, assists testers in formulating work priorities, and optimizing test resource allocation.

[0150] Embodiment 2:

[0151] As Figure 4 shown, this embodiment provides a software performance evaluation device, which includes:

[0152] A display unit 1 for displaying a first object in a first area of a display interface. The first object includes at least two second objects. Each second object includes a first sub-object and a second sub-object. Each second object is arranged vertically in sequence, and the first sub-object and the second sub-object are arranged horizontally in sequence. The second sub-object includes a selection window for selecting the first sub-object.

[0153] A first acquisition unit 2 for acquiring a first selection operation, where the first selection operation includes a selection operation on the second sub-object in the second object.

[0154] A first response unit 3 for, in response to the first selection operation, displaying a third object in a second area of the display interface. The third object includes a performance score of the software to be evaluated obtained during the design and development phase.

[0155] An operation and maintenance unit 4 for displaying a fourth object in the second area of the display interface. The fourth object includes at least one fifth object and at least one sixth object. Each fifth object includes at least two third sub-objects, and each third sub-object is arranged horizontally in sequence. Each sixth object includes at least five fourth sub-objects, and each fourth sub-object is arranged horizontally in sequence.

[0156] A seventh acquisition unit 5 for acquiring a first filling operation, where the first filling operation includes filling evaluation item information and evaluation dimension information corresponding to the evaluation item information into two third sub-objects in the fifth object respectively.

[0157] An eighth acquisition unit 6, configured to acquire a second filling operation, where the second filling operation includes filling evaluation item information, an evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the business transaction category, an evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the management analysis category, an evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the regulatory reporting category, and an evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the operation management category into each fourth sub-object in the sixth object respectively;

[0158] A first analysis unit 7, configured to analyze the relationship between each third sub-object and the first sub-object in sequence. If the third sub-object has appeared in the first sub-object, delete the third sub-object, and add a tag with the number of repetitions to the repeated corresponding second object in the first object;

[0159] A score update unit 8, configured to calculate an evaluation score after version iteration according to the number of repetitions corresponding to each second object, and update the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object to the evaluation score after version iteration.

[0160] A first addition unit 9, configured to add the third sub-object filled with evaluation item information in the fifth object to the blank second object, and add all sixth objects to the evaluation item attention factor table.

[0161] In some other embodiments, the first response unit 3 includes:

[0162] A first judgment unit 31, configured to judge the selected object of the first selection operation in sequence. If the second sub-object is selected, acquire first information, where the first information is the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation score is a first preset value;

[0163] A first calculation unit 32, configured to establish a credibility adjustment mathematical model according to all the first information, and solve the credibility adjustment mathematical model to obtain the updated first information;

[0164] A total score calculation unit 33, configured to calculate according to all the first information to obtain the performance score of the software to be evaluated in the design and development stage.

[0165] In some other embodiments, the first calculation unit 32 includes:

[0166] A second acquisition unit 321, configured to acquire second information, where the second information includes the number of occurrences of the first sub-object in the software development record each year within a preset number of years, and the software development record is the development record of all software within a historical time period;

[0167] A first sub-calculation unit 322, configured to establish a credibility calculation mathematical formula corresponding to each first sub-object based on the second information corresponding to each first sub-object, and solve the credibility calculation mathematical formula to obtain the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object;

[0168] The second sub-computation unit 323 is configured to calculate an evaluation score with adjusted credibility based on the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and update the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object to the evaluation score with adjusted credibility.

[0169] The third acquisition unit 324 is configured to acquire third information, where the third information includes the application service type of the software to be evaluated, and the application service type includes business transaction type or management analysis type or regulatory reporting type or operation management type;

[0170] The fourth acquisition unit 325 is configured to acquire an evaluation item attention factor table, where the evaluation item attention factor table is the evaluation item attention factor corresponding to each first sub-object under different application service types;

[0171] The third sub-computation unit 326 is configured to calculate an evaluation score with adjusted evaluation item attention factor based on the evaluation item attention factor table and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and update the evaluation score corresponding to each first sub-object to the evaluation score with adjusted evaluation item attention factor.

[0172] In some other embodiments, the total score calculation unit 33 includes:

[0173] The fifth acquisition unit 331 is configured to acquire fourth information, where the fourth information includes the evaluation dimension corresponding to each first sub-object, and the evaluation dimension includes application performance or database design or batch processing design or high availability design or reliability design;

[0174] The sixth acquisition unit 332 is configured to acquire a dimension attention factor table, where the dimension attention factor table is the dimension attention factor corresponding to different evaluation dimensions under different application service types;

[0175] The fourth sub-computation unit 333 is configured to calculate the performance score of the software to be evaluated in the design and development stage based on the dimension attention factor table, the evaluation dimension corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object.

[0176] In some other embodiments, the score update unit 8 includes:

[0177] The first logic unit 81 is configured to, if the repetition count is zero, the evaluation score of the version iteration is one;

[0178] The second logic unit 82 is configured to, if the repetition count is greater than or equal to one and less than or equal to three, the evaluation score of the version iteration is two;

[0179] The third logic unit 83 is configured to, if the repetition count is greater than or equal to four and less than or equal to six, the evaluation score of the version iteration is three;

[0180] The fourth logic unit 84 is configured to set the evaluation score for version iteration to four if the number of repetitions is greater than or equal to seven and less than or equal to nine.

[0181] The fifth logic unit 85 is configured to set the evaluation score for version iteration to five if the number of repetitions is greater than or equal to ten.

[0182] It should be noted that for the device in the above embodiments, the specific manners in which each module performs operations have been described in detail in the embodiments related to the method, and will not be elaborated herein.

[0183] Embodiment 3:

[0184] Corresponding to the above method embodiment, a software performance evaluation device is further provided in this embodiment. A software performance evaluation device described below can be correspondingly referred to with a software performance evaluation method described above.

[0185] Figure 5 is a block diagram of a software performance evaluation device 800 shown according to an exemplary embodiment. As Figure 5 shown, the software performance evaluation device 800 may include: a processor 801, a memory 802. The software performance evaluation device 800 may further include one or more of a multimedia component 803, an input / output (I / O) interface 804, and a communication component 805.

[0186] Among them, the processor 801 is used to control the overall operation of the software performance evaluation device 800 to complete all or part of the steps in the above-mentioned software performance evaluation method. The memory 802 is used to store various types of data to support the operation of the software performance evaluation device 800. These data may include, for example, instructions for any application or method operating on the software performance evaluation device 800, as well as application-related data, such as contact data, sent and received messages, pictures, audio, video, and so on. The memory 802 can be implemented by any type of volatile or non-volatile storage device or a combination thereof, such as Static Random Access Memory (SRAM), Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EPROM), Programmable Read-Only Memory (PROM), Read-Only Memory (ROM), magnetic memory, flash memory, magnetic disk or optical disk. The multimedia component 803 may include a screen and an audio component. Among them, the screen can be, for example, a touch screen, and the audio component is used to output and / or input audio signals. For example, the audio component may include a microphone for receiving external audio signals. The received audio signal can be further stored in the memory 802 or sent through the communication component 805. The audio component also includes at least one speaker for outputting audio signals. The I / O interface 804 provides an interface between the processor 801 and other interface modules, and the above-mentioned other interface modules can be a keyboard, a mouse, buttons, etc. These buttons can be virtual buttons or physical buttons. The communication component 805 is used for wired or wireless communication between the software performance evaluation device 800 and other devices. Wireless communication, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Near Field Communication (NFC), 2G, 3G or 4G, or a combination of one or more of them. Therefore, the corresponding communication component 805 may include: a Wi-Fi module, a Bluetooth module, an NFC module.

[0187] In an exemplary embodiment, the software performance evaluation device 800 may be implemented by one or more application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), digital signal processing devices (DSPDs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), controllers, microcontrollers, microprocessors, or other electronic components, and is used to execute the above-mentioned software performance evaluation method.

[0188] In another exemplary embodiment, a computer-readable storage medium including program instructions is further provided. When the program instructions are executed by a processor, the steps of the above-mentioned software performance evaluation method are implemented. For example, the computer-readable storage medium may be the above-mentioned memory 802 including program instructions, and the above-mentioned program instructions may be executed by the processor 801 of the software performance evaluation device 800 to complete the above-mentioned software performance evaluation method.

[0189] Embodiment 4:

[0190] Corresponding to the above method embodiment, a readable storage medium is further provided in this embodiment. A readable storage medium described below can be correspondingly referred to with a software performance evaluation method described above.

[0191] A readable storage medium stores a computer program. When the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the software performance evaluation method in the above method embodiment are implemented.

[0192] Specifically, the readable storage medium may be various readable storage media such as a USB flash drive, a mobile hard disk, a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a magnetic disk, or an optical disc that can store program codes.

[0193] The above are only the preferred embodiments of the present invention and are not used to limit the present invention. For those skilled in the art, the present invention may have various changes and modifications. Any modification, equivalent replacement, improvement, etc. made within the spirit and principle of the present invention shall be included in the protection scope of the present invention.

[0194] The above are only the specific embodiments of the present invention, but the protection scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any person skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed by the present invention can easily think of changes or substitutions, which should all be covered within the protection scope of the present invention. Therefore, the protection scope of the present invention shall be subject to the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A software performance evaluation method, characterized in that, Including: Display a first object in a first area of the display interface, the first object including at least two second objects, each of the second objects including a first sub-object and a second sub-object, each of the second objects arranged vertically in sequence, the first sub-object and the second sub-object arranged horizontally in sequence, the second sub-object including a selection window for selecting the first sub-object; Obtain a first selection operation, the first selection operation including a selection operation on the second sub-object in the second object; In response to the first selection operation, display a third object in a second area of the display interface, the third object including a performance score of the software to be evaluated calculated during the design and development stage; The step of, in response to the first selection operation, displaying a third object in a second area of the display interface, the third object including a performance score of the software to be evaluated calculated during the design and development stage, includes: Successively determine the object selected by the first selection operation. If the second sub-object is selected, obtain first information, the first information being the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation score being a first preset value; Establish a credibility adjustment mathematical model based on all the first information, and solve the credibility adjustment mathematical model to obtain updated first information; Calculate based on all the first information to obtain the performance score of the software to be evaluated during the design and development stage; Obtain second information, the second information including the number of occurrences of the first sub-object in the software development record each year within a preset number of years, and the software development record being the development records of all software within a historical time period; Establish a credibility calculation mathematical formula corresponding to each first sub-object based on the second information corresponding to each first sub-object, and solve the credibility calculation mathematical formula to obtain the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object; Calculated by the following formula: Where c represents the credibility factor; a represents whether there is such a production problem in the corresponding year, taking the value of 1 if there is, and 0 if not; x is a manually set basic decay parameter, currently set to 0.05; n represents the time range for searching for production problems; k represents the year difference between the current year and the year when the production problem was found; Calculate the evaluation score after credibility adjustment based on the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and update the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object to the evaluation score after credibility adjustment.

2. The software performance evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein , the step of establishing a credibility adjustment mathematical model based on all the first information and solving the credibility adjustment mathematical model to obtain updated first information includes: Obtain second information, the second information including the number of occurrences of the first sub-object in the software development record each year within a preset number of years, and the software development record being the development records of all software within a historical time period; Establish a credibility calculation mathematical formula corresponding to each first sub-object based on the second information corresponding to each first sub-object, and solve the credibility calculation mathematical formula to obtain the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object; Calculate the evaluation score after credibility adjustment based on the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and update the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object to the evaluation score after credibility adjustment.

3. The software performance evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein , The establishment of a credibility adjustment mathematical model based on all the first information and solving the credibility adjustment mathematical model to obtain the updated first information includes: Obtain the third information, where the third information includes the application service type of the software to be evaluated, and the application service type includes business transaction type, management analysis type, regulatory reporting type, or operation management type; Obtain the evaluation item attention factor table, where the evaluation item attention factor table is the evaluation item attention factor corresponding to each first sub-object under different application service types; Calculate the evaluation score after adjustment of the evaluation item attention factor based on the evaluation item attention factor table and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object. Calculate the evaluation score after adjustment of the evaluation item attention factor corresponding to each evaluation item through the following formula: r = c * v * a Where r is the score of the evaluation item, v is the evaluation score, c is the credibility factor, and a is the evaluation item attention factor; And update the evaluation score corresponding to each first sub-object to the evaluation score after adjustment of the evaluation item attention factor.

4. The software performance evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein , The calculation based on all the first information to obtain the performance score of the software to be evaluated in the design and development stage includes: Obtain the fourth information, where the fourth information includes the evaluation dimension corresponding to each first sub-object, and the evaluation dimension includes application performance, database design, batch processing design, high availability design, or reliability design; Obtain the dimension attention factor table, where the dimension attention factor table is the dimension attention factor corresponding to different evaluation dimensions under different application service types; Calculate the performance score of the software to be evaluated in the design and development stage based on the dimension attention factor table, the evaluation dimension corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object; Calculate the score of each dimension through the following formula: d = (∑r) / (w * 100) In the formula, ∑r is the sum of all evaluation item scores under this dimension, and w is the dimension attention factor; After calculation by the above formula, the score of each dimension on a percentile scale can be obtained; Then calculate the software performance score through the following formula: s = ∑d s is the total software performance score, and ∑d is the sum of all dimension scores.

5. The software performance evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that , In response to the first selection operation, display the third object in the second area of the display interface. The third object includes the calculated performance score situation of the software to be evaluated. After that, it also includes: Display the fourth object in the second area of the display interface. The fourth object includes at least one fifth object and at least one sixth object. Each fifth object includes at least two third sub-objects, and each third sub-object is arranged horizontally in sequence. Each sixth object includes at least five fourth sub-objects, and each fourth sub-object is arranged horizontally in sequence; Obtain a first filling operation, where the first filling operation includes filling evaluation item information and evaluation dimension information corresponding to the evaluation item information into two of the third sub-objects in the fifth object respectively; Obtain a second filling operation, where the second filling operation includes filling evaluation item information, the evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the business transaction category, the evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the management analysis category, the evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the regulatory reporting category, and the evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the operation management category into each fourth sub-object in the sixth object respectively; Add the third sub-object filled with the evaluation item information in the fifth object to the blank second object, and add all the sixth objects to the evaluation item attention factor table.

6. A software performance evaluation device, characterized in that, Include: A display unit for displaying a first object in a first area of a display interface, where the first object includes at least two second objects, each second object includes a first sub-object and a second sub-object, each second object is arranged vertically in sequence, the first sub-object and the second sub-object are arranged horizontally in sequence, and the second sub-object includes a selection window for selecting the first sub-object; A first acquisition unit for acquiring a first selection operation, where the first selection operation includes a selection operation on the second sub-object in the second object; A first response unit for, in response to the first selection operation, displaying a third object in a second area of the display interface, where the third object includes a calculated performance score of the software under evaluation in the design and development stage; The first response unit includes: A first judgment unit for sequentially judging the object selected by the first selection operation. If the second sub-object is selected, obtain a first piece of information, where the first piece of information is the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation score is a first preset value; A first calculation unit for establishing a credibility adjustment mathematical model based on all the first pieces of information and solving the credibility adjustment mathematical model to obtain updated first pieces of information; A total score calculation unit for calculating based on all the first pieces of information to obtain the performance score of the software under evaluation in the design and development stage; Obtain a second piece of information, where the second piece of information includes the number of occurrences of the first sub-object in the software development record each year within a preset number of years, and the software development record is the development record of all software within a historical time period; Establish a credibility calculation mathematical formula corresponding to each first sub-object based on the second piece of information corresponding to each first sub-object, and solve the credibility calculation mathematical formula to obtain the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object; Calculate and obtain through the following formula: Where c represents the credibility factor; a represents whether there is such a production problem in the corresponding year, if there is, the value is 1, if not, the value is 0; x is a manually set basic decay parameter, currently set to 0.05; n represents the time range for searching for production problems; k represents the difference in years between the current year and the year when the production problem was found; Calculate the evaluation score after credibility adjustment based on the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and update the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object to the evaluation score after credibility adjustment.

7. The software performance evaluation device according to claim 6, wherein The first calculation unit includes: A second acquisition unit, configured to acquire second information, where the second information includes the number of occurrences of the first sub-object in the software development records each year within a preset number of years, and the software development records are the development records of all software within a historical time period; A first sub-calculation unit, configured to establish a credibility calculation mathematical formula corresponding to each first sub-object based on the second information corresponding to each first sub-object, and solve the credibility calculation mathematical formula to obtain the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object; A second sub-calculation unit, configured to calculate the evaluation score after credibility adjustment according to the credibility factor corresponding to the first sub-object and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and update the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object to the evaluation score after credibility adjustment.

8. The software performance evaluation device according to claim 6, characterized in that The first calculation unit includes: A third acquisition unit, configured to acquire third information, where the third information includes the application service type of the software to be evaluated, and the application service type includes business transaction type, management analysis type, regulatory reporting type, or operation management type; A fourth acquisition unit, configured to acquire an evaluation item attention factor table, where the evaluation item attention factor table is the evaluation item attention factor corresponding to each first sub-object under different application service types; A third sub-calculation unit, configured to calculate the evaluation score after evaluation item attention factor adjustment according to the evaluation item attention factor table and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object, and calculate the evaluation score after evaluation item attention factor adjustment corresponding to each evaluation item through the following formula: r = c * v * a where r is the score of the evaluation item, v is the evaluation score, c is the credibility factor, and a is the evaluation item attention factor; and update the evaluation score corresponding to each first sub-object to the evaluation score after evaluation item attention factor adjustment.

9. The software performance evaluation device according to claim 6, wherein The total score calculation unit includes: A fifth acquisition unit, configured to acquire fourth information, where the fourth information includes the evaluation dimension corresponding to each first sub-object, and the evaluation dimension includes application performance, database design, batch processing design, high availability design, or reliability design; A sixth acquisition unit, configured to acquire a dimension attention factor table, where the dimension attention factor table is the dimension attention factor corresponding to different evaluation dimensions under different application service types; A fourth sub-calculation unit, configured to calculate the performance score of the software to be evaluated in the design and development stage according to the dimension attention factor table, the evaluation dimension corresponding to the first sub-object, and the evaluation score corresponding to the first sub-object; Calculate the score of each dimension through the following formula: d = (∑r) / (w * 100) In the formula, ∑r is the sum of the scores of all evaluation items under this dimension, and w is the dimension attention factor; After calculation through the above formula, the score of each dimension on a percentile scale can be obtained; Then, the software performance score is calculated through the following formula: s = ∑d s is the total software performance score, and ∑d is the sum of the scores of all dimensions.

10. The software performance evaluation device according to claim 6, wherein The software performance evaluation device further includes: An operation and maintenance unit, configured to display a fourth object in a second area of the display interface. The fourth object includes at least one fifth object and at least one sixth object. Each fifth object includes at least two third sub-objects, and each of the third sub-objects is arranged horizontally in sequence. Each sixth object includes at least five fourth sub-objects, and each of the fourth sub-objects is arranged horizontally in sequence; A seventh acquisition unit, configured to acquire a first filling operation, where the first filling operation includes filling evaluation item information and evaluation dimension information corresponding to the evaluation item information into two of the third sub-objects in the fifth object respectively; An eighth acquisition unit, configured to acquire a second filling operation, where the second filling operation includes filling evaluation item information, an evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the business transaction category, an evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the management analysis category, an evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the regulatory reporting category, and an evaluation item attention factor of the evaluation item under the operation management category into each of the fourth sub-objects in the sixth object respectively; A first addition unit, configured to add the third sub-object filled with the evaluation item information in the fifth object to the blank second object, and add all the sixth objects to the evaluation item attention factor table.

11. A software performance evaluation device, characterized in that, including: A memory, configured to store a computer program; A processor, configured to implement the steps of the software performance evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 5 when executing the computer program.

12. A readable storage medium, characterized in that: A computer program is stored on the readable storage medium, and when the computer program is executed by the processor, the steps of the software performance evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 5 are implemented.

Images