Interface model determination method and apparatus, and readable storage medium

Abstract

The application discloses an interface model determination method and device and a readable storage medium, relates to the technical field of computers, and is used for accurately selecting an interface model meeting quality requirements. The method comprises the following steps: determining a plurality of quality indicator scores and corresponding weight values of a to-be-evaluated interface model, wherein the plurality of quality indicator scores comprise a functional completeness score, a reliability score, a consistency score, a complexity score, an implementability score and an expandability score of the to-be-evaluated interface model; determining a quality score of the to-be-evaluated interface model according to the plurality of quality indicator scores and the corresponding weight values; and in the case that the quality score of the to-be-evaluated interface model is greater than a first threshold value, determining that the to-be-evaluated interface model is a target interface model.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of computer technology, and in particular to an interface model determination method, apparatus, and readable storage medium. Background Technology

[0002] For a long time, communication networks have often faced challenges in deploying services across layers, domains, and vendors, leading to long deployment times and poor customer experience. The controller northbound interface in a communication network is a crucial bridge connecting the cloud network end-to-end orchestrator and the downstream single-domain controller. To improve the flexibility of communication networks in service deployment, the quality of the controller northbound interface model is paramount.

[0003] The existing controller northbound interface model standard is not yet unified, and the quality of controller northbound interface models varies. How to accurately select a controller northbound interface model that meets the quality requirements in order to improve the data transmission efficiency between the cloud network end-to-end orchestrator and the downstream single-domain controller is an urgent technical problem to be solved. Summary of the Invention

[0004] This application provides an interface model determination method, apparatus, and readable storage medium to solve the technical problem of how to accurately select a controller northbound interface model that meets quality requirements.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, this application adopts the following technical solution:

[0006] Firstly, a method for determining an interface model is provided, comprising: determining multiple quality index scores and corresponding weight values ​​of the interface model to be evaluated, wherein the multiple quality index scores include functional completeness score, reliability score, consistency score, complexity score, implementability score, and scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated; calculating the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the multiple quality index scores and corresponding weight values; and determining the interface model to be evaluated as the target interface model if the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated is greater than a first threshold.

[0007] Based on the technical solution provided in this application, the interface model determination device can consider multiple quality indicators and quantify them to obtain various quality indicator scores, such as functional completeness score, reliability score, consistency score, complexity score, implementability score, and scalability score. Based on these multiple quality indicator scores and their corresponding weight values, the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined. In this way, the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated can be quantified from multiple perspectives, enabling quantitative comparison of different interface models to be evaluated, and accurately selecting the interface model that meets the quality requirements.

[0008] Optionally, multiple quality index scores are determined for the interface model to be evaluated, including: determining the functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the number of preset functions included in the interface model, wherein the preset functions include at least one of controller management functions, topology management functions, business management functions, notification management functions, alarm management functions, and protection and recovery functions; determining the reliability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on its fault analysis and fault handling capabilities; determining the structure of the interface model to be evaluated based on preset tools, and determining the consistency score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the similarity between the structure of the interface model to be evaluated and the preset standard structure; determining the complexity of the interface model to be evaluated based on preset indicators of multiple YANG modules, wherein the preset indicators include at least one of the number of functions of YANG modules, cyclomatic complexity, fan-in and fan-out degree, coupling complexity, structural complexity, and encapsulation complexity; determining the code complexity of the interface model to be evaluated based on preset code complexity, and determining the implementability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the code complexity; and determining the scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the number of Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs) in the interface model to be evaluated.

[0009] Optionally, determining the weight values ​​corresponding to the scores of multiple quality indicators includes: determining the evaluation index of the first quality indicator score, wherein the evaluation index of the first quality indicator score is used to characterize the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to the scores of multiple quality indicators, and the first quality indicator score is any one of the multiple quality indicator scores; and normalizing the evaluation index of the multiple quality indicator scores to obtain the weight value corresponding to each quality indicator score.

[0010] Optionally, the evaluation index for the first quality indicator score is determined, including: determining the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to each quality indicator score; and performing a geometric average of the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to each quality indicator score to obtain the evaluation index for the first quality indicator score.

[0011] Secondly, an interface model determination device is provided, including a determination unit and a calculation unit. The determination unit is used to determine multiple quality index scores and corresponding weight values ​​of the interface model to be evaluated. The multiple quality index scores include the functional completeness score, reliability score, consistency score, complexity score, implementability score, and scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated. Among them, the functional completeness score is positively correlated with the number of preset functions included in the interface model to be evaluated; the reliability score is positively correlated with the fault analysis capability and fault handling capability of the interface model to be evaluated; the consistency score is used to characterize the standardization of the format and structure of the interface model to be evaluated; the complexity score is used to characterize the structural relationship of the multiple YANG modules included in the interface model to be evaluated; the implementability score is used to characterize the code complexity in the interface model to be evaluated; and the scalability score is used to characterize the smoothness of the interface model to be evaluated. The calculation unit is used to determine the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the multiple quality index scores and corresponding weight values. The determination unit is also used to determine the interface model to be evaluated as the target interface model when the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated is greater than a first threshold.

[0012] Optionally, the determining unit is specifically used for: determining the functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the number of preset functions included in the interface model to be evaluated, wherein the preset functions include at least one of controller management functions, topology management functions, business management functions, notification management functions, alarm management functions, and protection and recovery functions; determining the reliability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on its fault analysis and fault handling capabilities; determining the structure of the interface model to be evaluated based on preset tools, and determining the consistency score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the similarity between the structure of the interface model to be evaluated and the preset standard structure; determining the complexity of the interface model to be evaluated based on preset indicators of multiple YANG modules, wherein the preset indicators include at least one of the following: number of YANG module functions, cyclomatic complexity, fan-in and fan-out degree, coupling complexity, structural complexity, and encapsulation complexity; determining the code complexity of the interface model to be evaluated based on preset code complexity, and determining the implementability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on code complexity; and determining the scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the number of Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs) in the interface model to be evaluated.

[0013] Optionally, the determining unit is specifically used for: determining the evaluation index of the first quality indicator score, wherein the evaluation index of the first quality indicator score is used to characterize the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to multiple quality indicator scores, and the first quality indicator score is any one of the multiple quality indicator scores; and normalizing the evaluation index of the multiple quality indicator scores to obtain the weight value corresponding to each quality indicator score.

[0014] Optionally, the unit is specifically used to: determine the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to the scores of each quality indicator; and to perform geometric averaging on the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to the scores of each quality indicator to obtain the evaluation index of the first quality indicator score.

[0015] Thirdly, an interface model determining device is provided, which can realize the functions performed by the interface model determining device in the above aspects or possible designs. The functions can be implemented by hardware. For example, in one possible design, the interface model determining device may include a processor and a communication interface. The processor can be used to support the interface model determining device in realizing the functions involved in the first aspect or any possible design of the first aspect.

[0016] In another possible design, the interface model determination apparatus may further include a memory for storing necessary computer execution instructions and data. When the interface model determination apparatus is running, the processor executes the computer execution instructions stored in the memory to cause the interface model determination apparatus to perform the first aspect or any of the possible interface model determination methods described above.

[0017] Fourthly, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, which may be a readable non-volatile storage medium storing computer instructions or programs that, when executed on a computer, enable the computer to perform the interface model determination method described in the first aspect or any of the possible methods described above.

[0018] Fifthly, a computer program product containing instructions is provided, which, when run on a computer, enables the computer to execute the interface model determination method of the first aspect or any possible design of the above aspects.

[0019] In a sixth aspect, an interface model determining apparatus is provided, comprising one or more processors and one or more memories. The one or more memories are coupled to the one or more processors, and the one or more memories are used to store computer program code, including computer instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the interface model determining apparatus to perform an interface model determining method as described in the first aspect or any possible design of the first aspect.

[0020] In a seventh aspect, a chip system is provided, comprising a processor and a communication interface. This chip system can be used to implement the functions performed by the interface model determination device in the first aspect or any possible design of the first aspect, such as the processor acquiring a first request message from a terminal device via the communication interface. In one possible design, the chip system further includes a memory for storing program instructions and / or data. The chip system can be composed of chips or may include chips and other discrete devices, without limitation. Attached Figure Description

[0021] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of an interface model determination system provided in an embodiment of this application;

[0022] Figure 2 A schematic diagram of the structure of another interface model determination device provided in the embodiments of this application;

[0023] Figure 3 A flowchart illustrating another interface model determination method provided in this application embodiment;

[0024] Figure 4 A flowchart illustrating another interface model determination method provided in this application embodiment;

[0025] Figure 5 A flowchart illustrating another interface model determination method provided in this application embodiment;

[0026] Figure 6 A flowchart illustrating another interface model determination method provided in this application embodiment;

[0027] Figure 7 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of an interface model determination device provided in an embodiment of this application;

[0028] Figure 8 This is a schematic diagram of another interface model determination device provided in an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0029] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the technical solutions of this disclosure, the technical solutions in the embodiments of this application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0030] It should be noted that the terms "first," "second," etc., used in the specification, claims, and accompanying drawings of this application are used to distinguish similar objects and are not necessarily used to describe a specific order or sequence. It should be understood that such data can be interchanged where appropriate so that the embodiments of this disclosure described herein can be implemented in orders other than those illustrated or described herein. The embodiments described in the following exemplary embodiments do not represent all embodiments consistent with this disclosure. Rather, they are merely examples of apparatuses and methods consistent with some aspects of the embodiments of this application as detailed in the appended claims.

[0031] It should also be understood that the term "comprising" indicates the presence of the described feature, whole, step, operation, element and / or component, but does not exclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, wholes, steps, operations, elements and / or components.

[0032] For a long time, communication networks have often faced challenges in deploying services across layers, domains, and vendors, leading to long deployment times and poor customer experience. The controller northbound interface in a communication network is a crucial bridge connecting the cloud network end-to-end orchestrator and the downstream single-domain controller. To improve the flexibility of communication networks in service deployment, the quality of the controller northbound interface model is paramount.

[0033] The existing controller northbound interface model standard is not yet unified, and the quality of controller northbound interface models varies. How to accurately select a controller northbound interface model that meets the quality requirements in order to improve the data transmission efficiency between the cloud network end-to-end orchestrator and the downstream single-domain controller is an urgent technical problem to be solved.

[0034] In view of this, embodiments of this application provide an interface model determination method, including: determining multiple quality index scores and corresponding weight values ​​of the interface model to be evaluated, wherein the multiple quality index scores include functional completeness score, reliability score, consistency score, complexity score, implementability score, and scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated; determining the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the multiple quality index scores and corresponding weight values; and determining the interface model to be evaluated as the target interface model if the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated is greater than a first threshold.

[0035] The methods provided in the embodiments of this application will now be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0036] It should be noted that the network system described in the embodiments of this application is for the purpose of more clearly illustrating the technical solutions of the embodiments of this application, and does not constitute a limitation on the technical solutions provided in the embodiments of this application. As those skilled in the art will know, with the evolution of network systems and the emergence of other network systems, the technical solutions provided in the embodiments of this application are also applicable to similar technical problems.

[0037] Figure 1 The diagram shown is a schematic representation of an interface model determination system provided in an embodiment of this application. Figure 1 As shown, the interface model determination system may include a terminal device 11 and an interface model determination device 12. The terminal device 11 and the interface model determination device 12 are communicatively connected. For example, the terminal device 11 and the interface model determination device 12 can be connected wirelessly. Alternatively, the terminal device 11 and the interface model determination device 12 can be connected via a wired connection.

[0038] The terminal device 11 may include one or more interface models. These interface models are used to connect the cloud network end-to-end orchestrator and the downstream single-domain controller. For example, the terminal device 11 may be a computer, router, switch, gateway, etc.

[0039] The interface model determination device 12 is used to determine the quality score of one or more interface models included in the terminal device 11. For example, the interface model determination device 12 can be a server, a computer, etc.

[0040] The interface model determination device 12 involved in the embodiments of this application may also be referred to as a server, computer, etc. In the embodiments of this application, the specific technology and specific device form used in the interface model determination device 12 are not limited.

[0041] The embodiments of this application do not limit the specific technology, quantity, or form of the terminal device 11.

[0042] In different application scenarios, the terminal device 11 and the interface model determination device 12 can be independent devices or integrated into the same device. This embodiment of the invention does not make specific limitations on this.

[0043] It should be noted that, Figure 1 This is just an example framework diagram. Figure 1 The names of the various devices included are unrestricted, and except for Figure 1 In addition to the functional nodes shown, other nodes may also be included, but this application embodiment does not limit this.

[0044] In practical implementation, Figure 1 Each device in the process can be adopted Figure 2 The shown composition structure, or including Figure 2 The components shown. Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the composition of an interface model determination device 200 provided in an embodiment of this application. The interface model determination device 200 can be a server, or it can be a chip or system-on-a-chip within the server. Figure 2 As shown, the interface model determination device 200 includes a processor 201, a communication interface 202, and a communication line 203.

[0045] Furthermore, the interface model determination device 200 may also include a memory 204. The processor 201, memory 204, and communication interface 202 can be connected via a communication line 203.

[0046] The processor 201 can be a CPU, a general-purpose processor, a network processor (NP), a digital signal processor (DSP), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a programmable logic device (PLD), or any combination thereof. The processor 201 can also be other devices with processing capabilities, such as circuits, devices, or software modules, without limitation.

[0047] Communication interface 202 is used to communicate with other devices or other communication networks. Communication interface 202 can be a module, circuit, communication interface, or any device capable of enabling communication.

[0048] Communication line 203 is used to transmit information between the components included in the interface model determination device 200.

[0049] Memory 204 is used to store instructions. These instructions can be computer programs.

[0050] The memory 204 can be a read-only memory (ROM) or other type of static storage device that can store static information and / or instructions; it can also be a random access memory (RAM) or other type of dynamic storage device that can store information and / or instructions; it can also be an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), a compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM) or other optical disc storage, optical disc storage (including compressed optical discs, laser discs, optical discs, digital universal optical discs, Blu-ray discs, etc.), magnetic disk storage media or other magnetic storage devices, etc., without limitation.

[0051] It should be noted that the memory 204 can exist independently of the processor 201 or can be integrated with the processor 201. The memory 204 can be used to store instructions, program code, or some data, etc. The memory 204 can be located inside or outside the interface model determining device 200, without limitation. The processor 201 is used to execute the instructions stored in the memory 204 to implement the interface model determining method provided in the following embodiments of this application.

[0052] In one example, processor 201 may include one or more CPUs, for example, Figure 2 CPU0 and CPU1 in the CPU.

[0053] As an optional implementation, the interface model determination device 200 includes multiple processors, for example, besides Figure 2 In addition to processor 201, it may also include processor 205.

[0054] It should be pointed out that, Figure 2 The composition shown does not constitute a basis for this. Figure 1 The limitations of each device in the process, except Figure 2 In addition to the components shown, Figure 1 The various devices may include more Figure 2 More or fewer components, or combinations of certain components, or different arrangements of components.

[0055] In this embodiment of the application, the chip system may be composed of chips or may include chips and other discrete devices.

[0056] Furthermore, the actions, terms, etc., involved in the various embodiments of this application can be referenced interchangeably without limitation. The message names or parameter names in the messages exchanged between the various devices in the embodiments of this application are merely examples, and other names may be used in specific implementations without limitation.

[0057] To facilitate a clear description of the technical solutions in the embodiments of this application, the terms "first" and "second" are used in the embodiments of this application to distinguish identical or similar items with essentially the same function and effect. Those skilled in the art will understand that the terms "first" and "second" do not limit the quantity or execution order, and the terms "first" and "second" are not necessarily different.

[0058] It should be noted that, in this application, the terms "exemplary" or "for example" are used to indicate that something is being described as an example, illustration, or illustration. Any embodiment or design described as "exemplary" or "for example" in this application should not be construed as being more preferred or advantageous than other embodiments or design solutions. Specifically, the use of terms such as "exemplary" or "for example" is intended to present the relevant concepts in a concrete manner.

[0059] In this application, "at least one" means one or more, and "more than one" means two or more. "And / or" describes the relationship between related objects, indicating that three relationships can exist. For example, A and / or B can mean: A alone, A and B simultaneously, or B alone, where A and B can be singular or plural. The character " / " generally indicates that the preceding and following related objects are in an "or" relationship. "At least one of the following" or similar expressions refer to any combination of these items, including any combination of single or plural items. For example, at least one of a, b, or c can mean: a, b, c, ab, ac, bc, or abc, where a, b, and c can be single or multiple.

[0060] The following is combined with Figure 1 The interface model determination system shown herein describes the interface model determination method provided in the embodiments of this application.

[0061] Figure 3 This application provides an interface model determination method, which can be applied to an interface model determination device or a server. The interface model determination device can be... Figure 1 The interface model determination device 11 can also be used for devices such as chips within the interface model determination device 11. This application embodiment uses an application to an interface model determination device as an example for illustration. Figure 3 As shown, the method includes the following steps S301-S303:

[0062] S301, The interface model determination device determines the scores of multiple quality indicators and their corresponding weight values ​​of the interface model to be evaluated.

[0063] The interface model determination device can be Figure 1 The interface model determination device 12 can also be used for devices such as chips in the interface model determination device 12.

[0064] The interface model to be evaluated can be a northbound interface model. For example, it can be a telephone application programming interface (TAPI) model, an abstract and control of traffic-engineered networks (ACTN) interface model, etc. The number of interface models to be evaluated can be one or more.

[0065] The evaluation criteria include multiple quality indicators: functional completeness, reliability, consistency, complexity, implementability, and scalability. The functional completeness score is positively correlated with the number of pre-defined functions included in the interface model. For example, pre-defined functions may include at least one of controller management, topology management, business management, notification management, alarm management, and protection / recovery functions. The reliability score is positively correlated with the interface model's fault analysis and fault handling capabilities. The consistency score characterizes the standardization of the interface model's structure. The complexity score characterizes the structural relationships among multiple YANG modules in the interface model. The implementability score characterizes the code complexity in the interface model. The scalability score characterizes the smoothness of the interface model.

[0066] As one possible implementation, the interface model determination device can determine the functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the number of preset functions it includes, and the reliability score based on its fault analysis and fault handling capabilities. It can also determine the structure of the interface model to be evaluated using preset tools and determine its consistency score based on the similarity between its structure and a preset standard structure. Furthermore, it can determine the complexity of the interface model to be evaluated based on preset indicators for multiple YANG modules. Finally, it can determine the code complexity of the interface model to be evaluated based on preset code complexity and determine its implementability score based on this code complexity. Finally, it can determine the scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the number of Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs) in it.

[0067] As one possible implementation, the interface model determination device can determine the weight values ​​of multiple quality indicators based on the importance of each quality indicator relative to other quality indicators. It can also determine the weight values ​​of multiple quality indicators based on received user pre-configuration information, etc., without limitation.

[0068] It should be noted that the specific details of determining the scores of multiple quality indicators and their corresponding weights of the interface model to be evaluated in this possible implementation will be explained in a later section, and will not be repeated here.

[0069] In practical applications, a terminal device may include multiple interface models. Responding to a user's operation, the terminal device can determine the interface model to be evaluated from among these models and send a first request to an interface model determining device. This first request includes the interface model to be evaluated and is used to request the interface model determining device to determine the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated. Upon receiving the first request from the terminal device, the interface model determining device can determine the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated.

[0070] Among them, the terminal device can be Figure 1 The terminal device 11 can also be a device in the terminal device 11, such as a chip.

[0071] S302. The interface model determination device calculates the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the scores of multiple quality indicators and their corresponding weight values.

[0072] In one possible implementation, the interface model determination device can perform a weighted summation based on multiple quality index scores and their corresponding weight values ​​to calculate the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated.

[0073] For example, the interface model determination device can calculate the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated by weighted summation of multiple quality index scores and their corresponding weight values ​​according to the following formula.

[0074] Formula 1: F = w1*a1 + w2*a2 + w3*a3 + w4*a4 + w5*a5 + w6*a6

[0075] Where F represents the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated. w1 represents the functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated, and a1 represents the weight value corresponding to the functional completeness score. w2 represents the reliability score of the interface model to be evaluated, and a2 represents the weight value corresponding to the reliability score. w3 represents the consistency score of the interface model to be evaluated, and a3 represents the weight value corresponding to the consistency score. w4 represents the complexity score of the interface model to be evaluated, and a4 represents the weight value corresponding to the complexity score. w5 represents the implementability score of the interface model to be evaluated, and a5 represents the weight value corresponding to the implementability score. w6 represents the scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated, and a6 represents the weight value corresponding to the scalability score.

[0076] S303. When the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated is greater than the first threshold, the interface model determination device determines the interface model to be evaluated as the target interface model.

[0077] The first threshold can be set as needed. For example, it can be 60, 70, 80, etc.

[0078] As one possible implementation, the interface model determination device includes a comparator that compares the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated with a first threshold. The interface model determination device can then use the comparator to determine whether the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated is greater than the first threshold.

[0079] Furthermore, the interface model determination device is also equipped with a display screen. After determining the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated, the interface model determination device can display the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated on the display screen.

[0080] In some embodiments, after determining the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated, the interface model determining device can generate an evaluation report of the interface model to be evaluated. The evaluation report includes the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated, and may also include the score of each quality indicator, evaluation number, evaluator, selected template, evaluation interface, evaluation time, evaluation method, etc., without limitation.

[0081] It should be noted that a higher quality score indicates better overall performance of the interface model being evaluated. A higher functional completeness score indicates more comprehensive functionality of the interface model being evaluated. A higher reliability score indicates stronger fault tolerance of the interface model being evaluated. The consistency score is a binary variable, with a full score indicating that the interface model conforms to syntactic accuracy specifications, and a score of zero indicating the presence of syntactic errors. A higher complexity score indicates simpler connections between the components of the interface model being evaluated. A higher implementability score indicates easier implementation of the interface model being evaluated. A higher scalability score indicates better extensibility of the interface model being evaluated.

[0082] Based on the technical solution provided in the embodiments of this application, the interface model determination device can consider multiple quality indicators and quantify them to obtain multiple quality indicator scores, such as functional completeness score, reliability score, consistency score, complexity score, implementability score, and scalability score. The quality score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on multiple quality indicator scores and their corresponding weight values. In this way, the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated can be quantified from multiple perspectives, enabling quantitative comparison of different interface models to be evaluated, and accurately selecting the interface model that meets the quality requirements.

[0083] One possible implementation, such as Figure 4 As shown, in order to determine the scores of multiple quality indicators of the interface model to be evaluated, S301 of this application may include the specific steps S401-S406 described below.

[0084] S401, The interface model determination device determines the functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the number of preset functions included in the interface model to be evaluated.

[0085] The preset functions include at least one of the following: controller management function, topology management function, service management function, notification management function, alarm management function, and protection and recovery function.

[0086] As one possible implementation, the interface model determination device can determine the ratio of the number of preset functions included in the interface model to be evaluated to the total number of preset functions, and determine the functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the ratio.

[0087] In one example, if the maximum score for functional completeness is 5 points, and the interface model to be evaluated includes 2 preset functions, then the functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined to be 2 points.

[0088] In one example, if the full score for functional completeness is 10 points, and the interface model to be evaluated includes 3 preset functions, then the functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined to be 6 points.

[0089] It should be noted that the interface model determination device can determine the preset functions included in the interface model to be evaluated by receiving user input operations.

[0090] S402. The interface model determination device determines the reliability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on its fault analysis capability and fault handling capability.

[0091] Among them, the fault analysis capability is positively correlated with the number of fault types that the interface model under evaluation can identify, and the fault handling capability is positively correlated with the number of fault types that the interface model under evaluation can handle.

[0092] As one possible implementation, the interface model determination device can determine the reliability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on its fault analysis capability and corresponding weight value, and its fault handling capability and corresponding weight value.

[0093] It should be noted that the interface model determination device can determine the ratio of the number of identifiable fault types included in the interface model to be evaluated to the total number of preset fault types, and determine the fault analysis capability of the interface model to be evaluated based on this ratio. The interface model determination device can also determine the ratio of the number of processable fault types included in the interface model to the total number of preset fault types, and determine the fault handling capability of the interface model to be evaluated based on this ratio.

[0094] In one example, the preset fault types may include: controller disconnection, controller crash, controller power failure, misoperation of the controller, controller security level lower than a preset level threshold, controller resource availability rate lower than a resource availability rate threshold, controller central processing unit (CPU) memory usage rate lower than a memory usage rate threshold, controller temperature higher than a temperature threshold, and receiving illegal data.

[0095] For example, if the maximum reliability score is 10, and the number of identifiable and manageable fault types included in the interface model to be evaluated is 6, and the total number of preset fault types is 10, then the functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined to be 6.

[0096] S403. The interface model determination device determines the structure of the interface model to be evaluated based on a preset tool, and determines the consistency score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the similarity between the structure of the interface model to be evaluated and the preset standard structure.

[0097] The preset tools can be configured as needed. For example, they can be tools like PYang.

[0098] As one possible implementation, the interface model determination device can use the PYang tool to extract multiple nodes in the interface model to be evaluated, as well as the pointing relationships between the multiple nodes, in order to determine the structure of the interface model to be evaluated.

[0099] Furthermore, the interface model determination device can determine the similarity between the structure of the interface model to be evaluated and the preset standard structure by comparing multiple nodes in the interface model to be evaluated with multiple nodes in the preset standard structure, and by comparing the pointing relationships between multiple nodes in the interface model to be evaluated with the pointing relationships between multiple nodes in the preset standard structure, thereby determining the consistency score of the interface model to be evaluated.

[0100] For example, if the similarity between the structure of the interface model to be evaluated and the preset standard structure is greater than 0.9, the consistency score of the interface model to be evaluated can be determined to be 10 points. If the similarity between the structure of the interface model to be evaluated and the preset standard structure is less than or equal to 0.9, the consistency score of the interface model to be evaluated can be determined to be 0 points.

[0101] S404. The interface model determination device determines the complexity of the interface model to be evaluated based on the preset indicators of multiple YANG modules.

[0102] The preset indicators include at least one of the following: the number of functions of the YANG module, cyclomatic complexity, fan-in and fan-out degree, coupling complexity, structural complexity, and encapsulation complexity.

[0103] As one possible implementation, the interface model determination device determines the value and weight corresponding to each preset index, and performs a weighted sum of the value and weight corresponding to each preset index to determine the complexity of the interface model to be evaluated.

[0104] The following section introduces the calculation methods for the number of functions, cyclomatic complexity, fan-in and fan-out degree, coupling complexity, structural complexity, and encapsulation complexity of the YANG module.

[0105] 1. The number of functions of the YANG module can be determined by the following formula 2.

[0106]

[0107] Where MoF represents the number of functionalities in the YANG module. j (j = 1, 2, ..., m) represents the number of functions contained in the j-th YANG module. m represents the number of YANG modules included in the interface model to be evaluated.

[0108] 2. The cyclomatic complexity of the YANG module can be determined by the following formula 3.

[0109] CCN = I - m + 2P (Formula 3)

[0110] Where CCN represents the cyclomatic complexity of the YANG module. I represents the number of dependencies in the YANG module. P represents the number of disconnected nodes in the YANG module.

[0111] 3. Fan-in and fan-out degrees of the YANG module.

[0112] The fan-in and fan-out rates of the YANG module can be determined by the sum of scores corresponding to multiple preset sub-indicators. These preset sub-indicators may include: fan-out rate of the mid-layer structure, the ratio of fan-in rate of the bottom-layer structure to fan-out rate of the mid-layer structure, and the ratio of fan-out rate of the top-layer structure to fan-out rate of the mid-layer structure.

[0113] The fan-in rate of the bottom layer structure can be determined by the following formula four; the fan-out rate of the middle layer structure can be determined by the following formula five; and the fan-out rate of the top layer structure can be determined by the following formula six:

[0114]

[0115]

[0116]

[0117] Among them, FIN bottom I represents the fan-in rate of the underlying structure. bottom Indicates fan-in of the underlying structure, N bottom Indicates the number of modules contained in the underlying structure. FOUT middle Indicates the fan-out ratio of the middle layer structure, O middle Indicates fan-out of the middle layer structure, N middle This indicates the number of modules contained in the middle-level structure. (FOUT) top Indicates the fan-out ratio of the top-level structure, O top Indicates top-level structure fan-out, N top This indicates the number of modules contained in the top-level structure.

[0118] It should be noted that there is a primary mapping relationship between the value of each preset sub-indicator and its corresponding score. For example, this primary mapping relationship can be shown in Table 1. When the value of the preset sub-indicator is [0, 1), FOUT... middle The corresponding rating is 1. The corresponding rating is 2. The corresponding rating is 2.

[0119] Table 1 First Mapping Relationship Table

[0120]

[0121] It should be noted that the data in Table 1 is for illustrative purposes only. The scores corresponding to the fan-in rate of the bottom layer, the fan-out rate of the middle layer, and the fan-out rate of the top layer can be set to other values ​​without restriction.

[0122] For example, when the values ​​corresponding to multiple preset sub-indicators are [0, 1), the interface model can determine that the fan-in and fan-out degree of the YANG module is 5.

[0123] 4. The coupling complexity of the YANG module can be determined by the following formula seven.

[0124]

[0125] Where CBO represents the coupling complexity of the YANG module. IMP represents the number of data imports between YANG modules. AUM represents the number of augmentations between YANG modules.

[0126] 5. The structural complexity of the YANG module can be determined by the following formula.

[0127]

[0128] Here, SCM represents the structural complexity of the YANG module. TBI m TBI represents the reachability index of the m-th module. m This represents the antecedent index of the m-th module.

[0129] 6. Encapsulation complexity of the YANG module.

[0130] The encapsulation complexity reflects the degree of enclosure of each node within the YANG module.

[0131] As one possible implementation, the interface model to be evaluated can determine the encapsulation complexity of the YANG module by determining the number of visible nodes of each node within the YANG module and based on the sum of the number of visible nodes of each node within the YANG module.

[0132] S405. The interface model determination device determines the code complexity of the interface model to be evaluated based on the preset code complexity, and determines the feasibility score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the code complexity.

[0133] The preset code complexity can be set as needed. For example, it can be set to Halstead complexity.

[0134] It should be noted that the preset code complexity can be derived from basic information in the interface model to be evaluated, and the code complexity of the interface model to be evaluated can be determined based on this basic information. Basic information may include the total vocabulary, program length, algorithm's potential minimum capacity, actual capacity, program level, program difficulty, etc.

[0135] S406. The interface model determination device determines the scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the number of RPCs in the interface model to be evaluated.

[0136] As one possible implementation, the interface model determination device can detect the code data in the interface model to be evaluated, and use a counter to perform an accumulation and summation operation on the RPC identifiers in the code data to determine the number of RPCs.

[0137] After determining the number of RPCs, the scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated can be determined based on a second mapping relationship between the number of RPCs and the scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated. For example, the second mapping relationship can be shown in Table 2.

[0138] Table 2 Second Mapping Relationship

[0139] Scalability score 10 8 5 2

[0140] It should be noted that the data in Table 2 is for illustrative purposes only, and the score corresponding to the number of RPCs can be set to other values ​​without restriction.

[0141] One possible implementation, such as Figure 5 As shown, in order to determine the weight values ​​corresponding to the scores of multiple quality indicators, the interface model determination method of this application may include the specific steps S501-S502 described below.

[0142] S501, The interface model determination device determines the evaluation index for the first quality index score.

[0143] The evaluation index of the first quality indicator score is used to characterize the importance of the first quality indicator score compared to the scores of multiple quality indicators. The first quality indicator score is any one of the multiple quality indicator scores.

[0144] As one possible implementation, the interface model determining device determines the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to each quality indicator score; and performs geometric averaging on the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to each quality indicator score to obtain the evaluation index of the first quality indicator score.

[0145] It should be noted that the possible implementation method can be referred to the description of steps S601-S602 below, and will not be repeated here.

[0146] S502. Normalize the evaluation indicators of multiple quality indicator scores to obtain the weight value corresponding to each quality indicator score.

[0147] The normalization process can be referenced from existing technologies and will not be elaborated upon here.

[0148] One possible implementation, such as Figure 6 As shown, in order to determine the evaluation index for the first quality index score, S501 of this application may include the following specific S601-S602.

[0149] S601, The interface model determining device determines the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to the scores of each quality indicator.

[0150] As one possible implementation, the database in the interface model determination device pre-stores the importance of a first quality indicator score relative to each other quality indicator score. The interface model determination device can determine the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to each other quality indicator score using the database.

[0151] For example, the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to the scores of each quality indicator can be shown in Table 3.

[0152] Table 3. Importance of the first quality indicator score relative to the scores of each quality indicator.

[0153] C1 1 1 / 4 1 / 3 1 / 5 1 1 / 4 C2 4 1 2 1 / 2 4 1 C3 3 1 / 2 1 1 / 3 3 1 / 2 C4 5 2 3 1 5 2 C5 1 1 / 4 1 / 3 1 / 5 1 1 / 3 C6 4 1 2 1 / 2 3 1

[0154] It should be noted that Table 3 is only an example, and the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to the scores of each quality indicator may include other values, without limitation.

[0155] It should be noted that C1 represents the functional completeness score, C2 represents the reliability score, C3 represents the consistency score, C4 represents the complexity score, C5 represents the implementability score, and C6 represents the scalability score. The numerical representations corresponding to the importance scores are shown in Table 4.

[0156] Table 4. Numerical representation of importance levels

[0157] Equally important 1 Slightly important 3 Stronger and more important 5 Strongly important 7 Extremely important 9 The median value between two adjacent judgments 2，4，6，8

[0158] It should be noted that the data in Table 4 is merely illustrative; the importance ratio of quality indicator score Ci to quality indicator score Cj can also be other values, without restriction. Ci and Cj can be any one of C1-C4.

[0159] For example, a C2 to C1 ratio of 4 indicates that C2 is between slightly more important and more important than C1. A C3 to C1 ratio of 3 indicates that C3 is slightly more important than C1.

[0160] S602, the interface model determining device performs geometric averaging of the importance of the first quality index score compared to the scores of each quality index to obtain the evaluation index of the first quality index score.

[0161] In one example, the interface model determination device can use the following formula nine to perform a geometric mean of the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to the scores of each quality indicator.

[0162]

[0163] Where W′ represents the evaluation index of the first quality indicator score, and n1, n2, n3, n4, n5, and n6 represent the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to the scores of each quality indicator.

[0164] One possible implementation, such as Figure 7 As shown, in order to improve the user experience, the interface model determination device may include a model management module, an interface evaluation module, a log management module, and a user management module.

[0165] The model management module is primarily used to manage and view the attributes of the interface models themselves. For example, it can include importing interface files, displaying interface source code, displaying a tree diagram of interface files, and validating the syntax accuracy of the interface models.

[0166] The interface evaluation module mainly includes the display of the interface evaluation indicator system, as well as evaluation template management and interface performance evaluation. This function supports selecting and saving reasonable indicator weight ratio templates based on different focuses, supports manual tagging of user-uploaded files, supports users to conduct scientific and reasonable evaluation of interface performance based on the indicator system, supports single interface evaluation and multi-interface comparative evaluation, and generates evaluation results in the form of PDF reports.

[0167] The log management module is mainly used for log retrieval, which enables rapid problem tracing. Log management supports batch fuzzy queries of logs based on different conditions.

[0168] The user management module mainly includes modifying and determining user permissions, modifying and querying user personal information, and user login and logout.

[0169] The various solutions in the above embodiments of this application can be combined without contradiction.

[0170] This application embodiment can divide the interface model determination device into functional modules or functional units according to the above method example. For example, each function can be divided into a separate functional module or functional unit, or two or more functions can be integrated into one processing module. The integrated module can be implemented in hardware or in software functional modules or functional units. The module or unit division in this application embodiment is illustrative and only represents one logical functional division; other division methods may be used in actual implementation.

[0171] When dividing each function into modules according to its corresponding function. Figure 8A schematic diagram of an interface model determination device is shown. This interface model determination device can be a terminal device or a chip applied in a terminal device. This interface model determination device can be used to perform the functions of the terminal device involved in the above embodiments. Figure 8 The interface model determination device shown may include: a determination unit 701 and a calculation unit 702.

[0172] The determining unit 701 is used to determine the scores of multiple quality indicators and their corresponding weights for the interface model to be evaluated. These quality indicator scores include the functional completeness score, reliability score, consistency score, complexity score, implementability score, and scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated. Specifically, the functional completeness score is positively correlated with the number of pre-defined functions included in the interface model to be evaluated; the reliability score is positively correlated with the fault analysis and fault handling capabilities of the interface model to be evaluated; the consistency score characterizes the standardization of the format and structure of the interface model to be evaluated; the complexity score characterizes the structural relationships of the multiple YANG modules included in the interface model to be evaluated; the implementability score characterizes the code complexity in the interface model to be evaluated; and the scalability score characterizes the smoothness of the interface model to be evaluated. The calculation unit 702 is used to determine the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the multiple quality indicator scores and their corresponding weights. The determining unit 701 is also used to determine the interface model to be evaluated as the target interface model if its quality score is greater than a first threshold.

[0173] In one possible design, the determining unit 702 is specifically used for: determining the functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the number of preset functions included in the interface model to be evaluated, wherein the preset functions include at least one of controller management functions, topology management functions, service management functions, notification management functions, alarm management functions, and protection and recovery functions; determining the reliability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on its fault analysis and fault handling capabilities; determining the structure of the interface model to be evaluated based on preset tools, and determining the consistency score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the similarity between the structure of the interface model to be evaluated and the preset standard structure; determining the complexity of the interface model to be evaluated based on preset indicators of multiple YANG modules, wherein the preset indicators include at least one of the number of functions of YANG modules, cyclomatic complexity, fan-in and fan-out degree, coupling complexity, structural complexity, and encapsulation complexity; determining the code complexity of the interface model to be evaluated based on preset code complexity, and determining the implementability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the code complexity; and determining the scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the number of Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs) in the interface model to be evaluated.

[0174] In one possible design, the determining unit 701 is specifically used to: determine the evaluation index of the first quality indicator score, the evaluation index of the first quality indicator score is used to characterize the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to multiple quality indicator scores, the first quality indicator score is any one of the multiple quality indicator scores; and normalize the evaluation index of the multiple quality indicator scores to obtain the weight value corresponding to each quality indicator score.

[0175] In one possible design, the determining unit 701 is specifically used to: determine the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to each quality indicator score; and perform geometric averaging on the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to each quality indicator score to obtain the evaluation index of the first quality indicator score.

[0176] This application also provides a computer-readable storage medium. All or part of the processes in the above method embodiments can be implemented by a computer program instructing related hardware. This program can be stored in the computer-readable storage medium, and when executed, it can include the processes of the above method embodiments. The computer-readable storage medium can be an internal storage unit of the interface model determination device (including a data sending end and / or a data receiving end) of any of the foregoing embodiments, such as the hard disk or memory of the interface model determination device. The computer-readable storage medium can also be an external storage device of the terminal device, such as a plug-in hard disk, smart media card (SMC), secure digital (SD) card, flash card, etc., equipped on the terminal device. Further, the computer-readable storage medium can include both the internal storage unit of the interface model determination device and an external storage device. The computer-readable storage medium is used to store the computer program and other programs and data required by the interface model determination device. The computer-readable storage medium can also be used to temporarily store data that has been output or will be output.

[0177] It should be noted that the terms "first" and "second," etc., in the specification, claims, and drawings of this application are used to distinguish different objects, not to describe a specific order. Furthermore, the terms "comprising" and "having," and any variations thereof, are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion. For example, a process, method, system, product, or apparatus that includes a series of steps or units is not limited to the listed steps or units, but may optionally include steps or units not listed, or may optionally include other steps or units inherent to these processes, methods, products, or apparatuses.

[0178] It should be understood that in this application, "at least one (item)" means one or more, "more than one" means two or more, "at least two (items)" means two or three or more, and "and / or" is used to describe the relationship between related objects, indicating that there can be three relationships. For example, "A and / or B" can mean: only A exists, only B exists, and A and B exist simultaneously, where A and B can be singular or plural. The character " / " generally indicates that the related objects before and after are in an "or" relationship. "At least one (item) of the following" or similar expressions refer to any combination of these items, including any combination of single or plural items. For example, at least one (item) of a, b, or c can mean: a, b, c, "a and b", "a and c", "b and c", or "a and b and c", where a, b, and c can be single or multiple.

[0179] Through the above description of the embodiments, those skilled in the art can clearly understand that, for the sake of convenience and brevity, only the division of the above functional modules is used as an example. In actual applications, the above functions can be assigned to different functional modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the device can be divided into different functional modules to complete all or part of the functions described above.

[0180] In the several embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed apparatus and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the apparatus embodiments described above are merely illustrative; for instance, the division of modules or units is only a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be combined or integrated into another device, or some features may be ignored or not executed. Furthermore, the mutual coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed may be through some interfaces; the indirect coupling or communication connection between devices or units may be electrical, mechanical, or other forms.

[0181] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. A component shown as a unit can be one or more physical units; that is, it can be located in one place or distributed in multiple different locations. Some or all of the units can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs.

[0182] Furthermore, the functional units in the various embodiments of this application can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or as a software functional unit.

[0183] If the integrated unit is implemented as a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solutions of the embodiments of this application, essentially or in other words, the parts that contribute to the prior art, or all or part of the technical solutions, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions to cause a device (which may be a microcontroller, chip, etc.) or processor to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of this application. The aforementioned storage medium includes various media capable of storing program code, such as USB flash drives, portable hard drives, ROM, RAM, magnetic disks, or optical disks.

[0184] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any changes or substitutions within the technical scope disclosed in this application should be included within the scope of protection of this application. Therefore, the scope of protection of this application should be determined by the scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for determining an interface model, characterized in that, The method includes: Determine the scores of multiple quality indicators and their corresponding weights for the interface model to be evaluated. The scores of multiple quality indicators include the functional completeness score, reliability score, consistency score, complexity score, implementability score, and scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated. The functional completeness score is positively correlated with the number of preset functions included in the interface model to be evaluated; the reliability score is positively correlated with the fault analysis and fault handling capabilities of the interface model to be evaluated; the consistency score is used to characterize the standardization of the format and structure of the interface model to be evaluated; the complexity score is used to characterize the structural relationship of the multiple YANG modules included in the interface model to be evaluated; the implementability score is used to characterize the code complexity in the interface model to be evaluated; and the scalability score is used to characterize the smoothness of the interface model to be evaluated. The determination of multiple quality index scores for the interface model to be evaluated includes: The functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the number of preset functions included in the interface model to be evaluated. The preset functions include at least one of controller management function, topology management function, service management function, notification management function, alarm management function, and protection and recovery function. The reliability score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on its fault analysis and fault handling capabilities. The structure of the interface model to be evaluated is determined according to a preset tool, and the consistency score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the similarity between the structure of the interface model to be evaluated and the preset standard structure. The complexity of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the preset indicators of the multiple YANG modules. The preset indicators include at least one of the following: number of functions of the YANG module, cyclomatic complexity, fan-in fan-out degree, coupling complexity, structural complexity, and encapsulation complexity. The code complexity of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the preset code complexity, and the feasibility score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the code complexity. The scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the number of Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs) in the interface model to be evaluated. The quality score of the interface model to be evaluated is calculated based on the scores of the multiple quality indicators and their corresponding weight values. If the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated is greater than the first threshold, the interface model to be evaluated is determined to be the target interface model.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Determining the weight values ​​corresponding to the scores of the multiple quality indicators includes: An evaluation index for the first quality indicator score is determined. The evaluation index for the first quality indicator score is used to characterize the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to the plurality of quality indicator scores. The first quality indicator score is any one of the plurality of quality indicator scores. The evaluation metrics of the multiple quality index scores are normalized to obtain the weight value corresponding to each quality index score.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The evaluation indicators for determining the score of the first quality indicator include: Determine the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to each of the quality indicator scores; The evaluation index of the first quality indicator score is obtained by geometrically averaging the importance of the first quality indicator score compared to the scores of each of the other quality indicators.

4. An interface model determination device, characterized in that, The device includes a determining unit and a calculating unit; The determining unit is used to determine multiple quality index scores and corresponding weight values ​​of the interface model to be evaluated. The multiple quality index scores include the functional completeness score, reliability score, consistency score, complexity score, implementability score, and scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated. The functional completeness score is positively correlated with the number of preset functions included in the interface model to be evaluated; the reliability score is positively correlated with the fault analysis and fault handling capabilities of the interface model to be evaluated; the consistency score is used to characterize the standardization of the format and structure of the interface model to be evaluated; the complexity score is used to characterize the structural relationship of the multiple YANG modules included in the interface model to be evaluated; the implementability score is used to characterize the code complexity in the interface model to be evaluated; and the scalability score is used to characterize the smoothness of the interface model to be evaluated. The determining unit is specifically used for: The functional completeness score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the number of preset functions included in the interface model to be evaluated. The preset functions include at least one of controller management function, topology management function, service management function, notification management function, alarm management function, and protection and recovery function. The reliability score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on its fault analysis and fault handling capabilities. The structure of the interface model to be evaluated is determined according to a preset tool, and the consistency score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the similarity between the structure of the interface model to be evaluated and the preset standard structure. The complexity of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the preset indicators of the multiple YANG modules. The preset indicators include at least one of the following: number of functions of the YANG module, cyclomatic complexity, fan-in fan-out degree, coupling complexity, structural complexity, and encapsulation complexity. The code complexity of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the preset code complexity, and the feasibility score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the code complexity. The scalability score of the interface model to be evaluated is determined based on the number of Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs) in the interface model to be evaluated. The calculation unit is used to determine the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated based on the scores of the multiple quality indicators and their corresponding weight values. The determining unit is further configured to determine the interface model to be evaluated as the target interface model if the quality score of the interface model to be evaluated is greater than the first threshold.

5. The apparatus according to claim 4, characterized in that, The determining unit is specifically used for: An evaluation index for the first quality indicator score is determined. The evaluation index for the first quality indicator score is used to characterize the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to the plurality of quality indicator scores. The first quality indicator score is any one of the plurality of quality indicator scores. The evaluation metrics of the multiple quality index scores are normalized to obtain the weight value corresponding to each quality index score.

6. The apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that, The determining unit is specifically used for: Determine the importance of the first quality indicator score relative to each of the quality indicator scores; The evaluation index of the first quality indicator score is obtained by geometrically averaging the importance of the first quality indicator score compared to the scores of each of the other quality indicators.

7. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The readable storage medium stores instructions that, when executed, implement the method as described in any one of claims 1-3.

8. An interface model determination device, characterized in that, include: The processor, memory, and communication interface; wherein the communication interface is used for communication by the interface model determining device; The memory is used to store one or more programs, the one or more programs including computer-executable instructions, and when the interface model determining device is running, the processor executes the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory to cause the interface model determining device to perform the method of any one of claims 1-3.

Images