System test strategy adjusting method based on lavor curve

Abstract

The embodiment of the invention relates to the technical field of test strategy adjustment, in particular to a system test strategy adjustment method based on a lavor curve, and the method comprises the steps: evaluating an ideal benefit score and an ideal time node of a tested system; determining test defects of the tested system, and respectively evaluating repair time required for repairing each test defect; based on the severity of each test defect, obtaining a plurality of repair groups, respectively calculating the total repair time for repairing each repair group, substituting the total repair time into a lavor curve formula, and determining the actual benefit score of each repair group in combination with the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node; respectively calculating an absolute value of a difference value between the actual benefit score and the ideal benefit score of each repair group as an adjustment evaluation value of each repair group, and determining the repair group with the minimum adjustment evaluation value as a target repair group; and repairing each test defect in the target repair group to complete system test strategy adjustment. The method makes up the blank of test strategy adjustment.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] Embodiments of the present application relate to the technical field of system test strategy adjustment, and in particular, to a system test strategy adjustment method based on a Laffer curve. Background Art

[0002] System testing (software testing) refers to the process of verifying whether the software meets the expected requirements by designing, executing and evaluating a series of test cases aimed at discovering software defects (errors or failures) during the software development process. The main goal of system testing is to find potential problems and defects in the software, improve software quality, reduce the risk of errors and failures after the software is released, ensure that the functions and performance of the software meet the expected requirements, and show the expected response when facing abnormal situations. Through system testing, the development team can promptly discover and correct defects in the software, thereby improving the credibility, usability and reliability of the software. In addition, system testing can also help the development team discover and solve problems as early as possible in the development process, thereby reducing the cost of fixing errors later.

[0003] However, the inventors of the present application have found that there is little research on system test adjustment strategies in the field of system testing. Currently, most system tests are proposed by the test leader, while the project leader is unable to adjust the test strategy according to the actual situation of the project. There is no unified standard in the industry on how to adjust the test strategy, which results in no basis for adjusting the test strategy and arbitrary adjustment of the test strategy. Summary of the invention

[0004] In view of this, an embodiment of the present application proposes a system test strategy adjustment method based on the Laffer curve, which uses the Laffer curve formula and combines the time to repair defects to calculate the actual benefit score of the system under test to adjust the test strategy of the system under test, thereby achieving the purpose of optimizing the actual benefit score of the system under test and filling the gap in test strategy adjustment.

[0005] In a first aspect, an embodiment of the present application proposes a method for adjusting a system test strategy based on a Laffer curve, comprising the following steps: evaluating an ideal benefit score of the system under test based on the project background and the project feasibility study report, and evaluating an ideal time node of the system under test based on the actual situation of the project and the market demand of the project; determining the test defects existing in the system under test, and evaluating the repair time required to repair each test defect respectively; selecting the test defects that need to be repaired based on the severity of each test defect, obtaining several repair groups, calculating the total repair time for repairing each repair group respectively, and substituting them into the Laffer curve formula, and determining the actual benefit score of each repair group in combination with the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node; wherein the test defects that need to be repaired selected in different repair groups are different; calculating the absolute value of the difference between the actual benefit score and the ideal benefit score of each repair group respectively as the adjustment evaluation value of each repair group, and determining the repair group with the smallest adjustment evaluation value as the target repair group; repairing each test defect in the target repair group to complete the system test strategy adjustment.

[0006] Optionally, the determining of test defects existing in the system under test and evaluating the repair time required to repair each test defect respectively include: determining the test defects existing in the system under test and evaluating the severity of each test defect; wherein the severity of the test defect is represented by a severity level, which is divided into crash level, severe level, ordinary level, minor level and recommendation level from high to low. The existence of a crash-level test defect causes the system under test to be unable to operate normally, and the existence of a severe-level test defect causes partial functional failure of the system under test. If there is no test defect or only a recommendation-level test defect, the procedure ends directly; detecting whether there is a crash-level test defect and a severe-level test defect. If there is no crash-level test defect and a severe-level test defect, the repair time required to repair each test defect is evaluated respectively. Otherwise, the crash-level test defect and the severe-level test defect are directly repaired until there are no crash-level test defects and severe-level test defects, and then the repair time required to repair each test defect is evaluated respectively.

[0007] Optionally, based on the severity of each test defect, the test defects that need to be repaired are selected to obtain several repair groups, and the total repair time for repairing each repair group is calculated separately, including: the project leader selects the test defects that need to be repaired based on the severity of each test defect to obtain several repair groups, and for each repair group, the repair time corresponding to each test defect in the repair group is accumulated, and the total repair time for repairing each repair group is calculated separately.

[0008] Optionally, for the kth repair group, the actual benefit score of the kth repair group is determined by the following formula:

[0009]

[0010] Among them, A represents the ideal benefit score of the system under test, B represents the ideal time node of the system under test, represents the total modification time of the kth repair group, where k is an integer greater than 0, S real Represents the actual benefit score of the kth restoration group.

[0011] Optionally, after evaluating the ideal timeliness score and the ideal time node of the system under test, the ideal timeliness score and the ideal time node of the system under test are normalized to 1;

[0012] For the kth restoration group, the actual benefit score of the kth restoration group is determined by the following formula:

[0013]

[0014] in, represents the total modification time of the kth repair group, where k is an integer greater than 0, S real Represents the actual benefit score of the kth restoration group.

[0015] Through the above method, the project leader can evaluate the ideal benefit score of the system under test based on the project background and project feasibility study report, and evaluate the ideal time node of the system under test based on the actual situation of the project and the market demand of the project. The ideal benefit score and the ideal time node will be used as one of the important reference indicators for adjusting the system test strategy in the future, which enables the project leader to fully participate in the adjustment of the system test strategy. For the test defects existing in the system under test, based on the severity of each test defect, the test defects that need to be repaired are selected to obtain several repair groups, and the total repair time for repairing each repair group is calculated respectively, and substituted into the Laffer curve formula. Combined with the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node, the actual benefit score of each repair group is determined, and then the adjustment evaluation value of each repair group is calculated. The repair group with the smallest adjustment evaluation value is determined as the target repair group. The test defects in the target repair group are repaired, and a strategy adjustment plan that can make the system under test achieve the best actual timeliness and repair the test defects that need to be repaired can be obtained, which fills the gap in the adjustment of the test strategy.

[0016] In the second aspect, the embodiment of the present application proposes a system test strategy adjustment system based on the Laffer curve, the system comprising: an ideal evaluation module, used to evaluate the ideal benefit score of the system under test according to the project background and the project feasibility study report, and to evaluate the ideal time node of the system under test according to the actual situation of the project and the market demand of the project; a defect evaluation module, used to determine the test defects existing in the system under test, and to evaluate the repair time required to repair each test defect; an actual benefit score calculation module, used to select the test defects that need to be repaired based on the severity of each test defect, and obtain a number of repair groups, The total repair time for each repair group is calculated separately and substituted into the Laffer curve formula. The actual benefit score of each repair group is determined in combination with the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node, wherein different test defects that need to be repaired are selected in different repair groups. An adjustment evaluation value calculation module is used to calculate the absolute value of the difference between the actual benefit score and the ideal benefit score of each repair group as the adjustment evaluation value of each repair group. An adjustment determination module is used to determine the repair group with the smallest adjustment evaluation value as the target repair group. An adjustment execution module is used to repair each test defect in the target repair group to complete the system test strategy adjustment.

[0017] In a third aspect, an embodiment of the present application proposes an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor so that the at least one processor can execute a system test strategy adjustment method based on a Laffer curve as described in the first aspect above.

[0018] In a fourth aspect, an embodiment of the present application proposes a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, can implement a system test strategy adjustment method based on a Laffer curve as described in the first aspect above.

[0019] It can be understood that the beneficial effects of the second to fourth aspects mentioned above can be found in the relevant description of the first aspect mentioned above, and will not be repeated here. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0020] In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present application or the technical solutions in the related technologies, the drawings required for use in the embodiments of the present application or the related technical descriptions will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present application. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying creative work.

[0021] Figure 1is a flow chart of a method for adjusting a system test strategy based on a Laffer curve provided in an embodiment of the present application;

[0022] Figure 2 is a structural schematic diagram of a system test strategy adjustment system based on a Laffer curve provided in another embodiment of the present application;

[0023] Figure 3 It is a structural schematic diagram of an electronic device provided in another embodiment of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0024] In order to make the purpose, technical scheme and advantages of the embodiments of the present application clearer, the embodiments of the present application will be described in detail below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. In the various embodiments of the present application, many technical details are proposed in order to make the reader better understand the present application. However, even without these technical details and various changes and modifications based on the following embodiments, the technical scheme claimed in the present application can also be implemented. The division of the following embodiments is only for the convenience of description, and the specific implementation mode of the present application should not constitute any limitation. The various embodiments can be combined with each other and referenced to each other under the premise of no contradiction.

[0025] An embodiment of the present application proposes a method for adjusting a system test strategy based on a Laffer curve, which is applied to an electronic device, wherein the electronic device can be a terminal or a server. In this embodiment and the following embodiments, the electronic device is described using a server as an example. The following is a detailed description of the implementation details of the method for adjusting a system test strategy based on a Laffer curve proposed in this embodiment. The following content is only for the convenience of understanding and is not necessary for the implementation of this solution. The specific process of the method for adjusting a system test strategy based on a Laffer curve proposed in this embodiment is as follows: Figure 1 As shown, including:

[0026] Step 101, based on the project background and the project feasibility study report, evaluate the ideal benefit score of the system under test, and based on the actual situation of the project and the market demand of the project, evaluate the ideal time node of the system under test.

[0027] In a specific implementation, after determining the system under test that needs to be adjusted in terms of strategy, the server can automatically evaluate the ideal benefit score of the system under test based on a preset program, according to the project background and the project feasibility study report, and evaluate the ideal time node of the system under test based on the actual situation of the project and the market demand of the project. Alternatively, the project leader can manually evaluate the ideal benefit score of the system under test based on the project background and the project feasibility study report, and evaluate the ideal time node of the system under test based on the actual situation of the project and the market demand of the project.

[0028] In one example, the server or project manager evaluates the ideal benefit score of the system under test based on the market research analysis of the system under test and the feasibility study report of the system under test, combined with multiple factors such as procurement cost. At the same time, based on the actual progress of the system under test and the predetermined plan, he or she regularly checks and evaluates the completion of key nodes, focusing on the market demand for the software to evaluate the ideal time node of the system under test.

[0029] In an example, the ideal benefit score of the system under test is recorded as A, and the ideal time node is recorded as B.

[0030] In one example, after evaluating the ideal benefit score and ideal time node of the system under test, the server may normalize the ideal benefit score and ideal time node of the system under test to 1, so that subsequent calculations are more regular and intuitive.

[0031] Step 102: determine the test defects existing in the system under test, and evaluate the repair time required to repair each test defect.

[0032] In the specific implementation, after obtaining the ideal benefit score and ideal time node of the system under test, the server can determine the test defects existing in the system under test and evaluate the repair time required to repair each test defect. The repair time required for each test defect can be automatically evaluated by the server or manually evaluated by the test leader.

[0033] In one example, after the server determines that a test defect exists in the system under test, it needs to evaluate the severity of each test defect. The severity of the test defect is represented by a severity level, which is divided into crash level, severe level, ordinary level, minor level and recommendation level from high to low. The existence of a crash-level test defect causes the system under test to be unable to operate normally. The existence of a severe-level test defect causes some functions of the system under test to fail. Although ordinary-level and minor-level test defects will not prevent the system under test from operating normally, they will cause certain functions of the system under test to fail or produce errors. Recommendation-level test defects are insignificant and are mostly typos, color errors and other defects that can be ignored.

[0034] If the server determines that the system under test has no test defects or only has recommended-level test defects, no adjustment is required and the process can be terminated directly.

[0035] If the server determines that the system under test has common, minor, and recommended level test defects, and does not have crash-level test defects and severe level test defects, the process can proceed normally, that is, evaluate the repair time required to repair each test defect separately.

[0036] If the server determines that the system under test has crash-level test defects and severe-level test defects, it directly repairs each crash-level test defect and each severe-level test defect until there are no crash-level test defects and severe-level test defects, and then evaluates the repair time required to repair each test defect.

[0037] It is understandable that crash-level and severe-level test defects must be repaired, otherwise the system under test will not be able to operate normally or some functions will fail. Therefore, this application does not include crash-level and severe-level test defects in the scope of benefit considerations.

[0038] Step 103, based on the severity of each test defect, select the test defects that need to be repaired to obtain several repair groups, calculate the total repair time for each repair group, and substitute it into the Laffer curve formula, combine the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node, and determine the actual timeliness score of each repair group.

[0039] In the specific implementation, after evaluating the repair time required to repair each test defect, the project leader can select the test defects that need to be repaired based on the severity of each test defect, obtain several repair groups, calculate the total repair time for each repair group, and substitute it into the Laffer curve formula, combining the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node to determine the actual timeliness score of each repair group. Among them, the test defects that need to be repaired selected in different repair groups are different, and the number of test defects in each repair group can be different.

[0040] In one example, the project leader selects test defects that need to be repaired based on the severity of each test defect to obtain several repair groups. For each repair group, the repair time corresponding to each test defect in the repair group is accumulated, and the total repair time for repairing each repair group is calculated.

[0041] In one example, for the kth restoration group, its actual benefit score can be determined by the following formula:

[0042]

[0043] Among them, A represents the ideal benefit score of the system under test, B represents the ideal time node of the system under test, represents the total modification time of the kth repair group, where k is an integer greater than 0, S real Represents the actual benefit score of the kth restoration group.

[0044] In one example, after evaluating the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node of the tested system, the server can normalize the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node of the tested system to 1. Then, for the kth repair group, its actual benefit score can be determined by the following formula:

[0045]

[0046] in, represents the total modification time of the kth repair group, where k is an integer greater than 0, S real Represents the actual benefit score of the kth restoration group.

[0047] In an example, suppose the system under test has a total of 20 test defects, denoted as bug1 to bug20, including 4 common test defects: bug1, bug6, bug8, bug14, 9 minor test defects: bug2, bug3, bug4, bug7, bug9, bug10, bug11, bug15, bug16, and 7 recommended test defects: bug5, bug12, bug13, bug17, bug18, bug19, bug20. The server evaluates the repair time required to repair each test defect, denoted as T bug1 To T bug20 . T bug1 =0.1s, T bug2 =0.06s, T bug3 =0.05s, T bug4 =0.25s, T bug5 =0.01s, T bug6 =0.3s, T bug7 =0.09s, T bug8 =0.2s, T bug9 =0.07s, T bug10 =0.02s, T bug11 =0.03s, T bug12 =0.01s, T bug13 =0.005s, T bug14 =0.7s, T bug15 =0.07s, T bug16 =0.02s, T bug17 =0.01s, T bug18 =0.01s, T bug19 =0.015s, T bug20 =0.009s.

[0048] The project leader selects from these test defects and generates several repair groups. Assume that the project leader selects 5 repair groups, namely the first repair group (bug1, bug6, bug7 and bug16), the second repair group (bug1, bug8, bug11 and bug15), the third repair group (bug8, bug2, bug3 and bug4), the fourth repair group (bug6, bug10, bug14 and bug15), and the fifth repair group (bug1, bug7, bug9, bug14 and bug15). Then, the server calculates the total repair time of each repair group. The total repair time of the first repair group is The total repair time of the second repair group is The total repair time of the third repair group is The total repair time of the fourth repair group is The total repair time of the fifth repair group is

[0049] Then for each restoration group, the actual benefit score is selected by Determine, thus the actual benefit score of the first repair group can be calculated as The actual benefit score of the second repair group was The actual benefit score of the third repair group is The actual benefit score of the fourth repair group is The actual benefit score of the fifth restoration group is

[0050] Step 104, respectively calculate the absolute value of the difference between the actual benefit score and the ideal benefit score of each repair group as the adjusted evaluation value of each repair group, and determine the repair group with the smallest adjusted evaluation value as the target repair group.

[0051] In a specific implementation, after calculating the actual benefit score of each repair group, the server can calculate the absolute value of the difference between the actual benefit score and the ideal benefit score of each repair group as the adjusted evaluation value of each repair group, and then compare the adjusted evaluation values ​​of each repair group to find the repair group with the smallest adjusted evaluation value and determine it as the target repair group.

[0052] In one example, the actual benefit score for the first repair group is Then the adjusted evaluation value is calculated as C1 = |0.7599-1| = 0.2401; the actual benefit score of the second repair group is Then its adjusted evaluation value is C2=|0.64-1|=0.36; the actual benefit score of the third restoration group is Then its adjusted evaluation value is C3=|0.8604-1|=0.1396; the actual benefit score of the fourth restoration group is Then its adjusted evaluation value is C4=|0.9919-1|=0.0081; the actual benefit score of the fifth restoration group is Then its adjusted evaluation value is C5=|0.9991-1|=0.0009. After comparison, it is known that the adjusted evaluation value of the fifth repair group is the smallest, and the server determines the fifth repair group as the target repair group.

[0053] Step 105: Repair each test defect in the target repair group to complete the system test strategy adjustment.

[0054] In a specific implementation, after the server determines the target repair group, it then selects to repair each test defect in the target repair group to complete the system test strategy adjustment.

[0055] In this embodiment, the project leader can evaluate the ideal benefit score of the system under test based on the project background and the project feasibility study report, and evaluate the ideal time node of the system under test based on the actual situation of the project and the market demand of the project. The ideal benefit score and the ideal time node will be used as one of the important reference indicators for adjusting the system test strategy, which enables the project leader to fully participate in the adjustment of the system test strategy. For the test defects existing in the system under test, based on the severity of each test defect, the test defects that need to be repaired are selected to obtain several repair groups, and the total repair time for repairing each repair group is calculated respectively, and substituted into the Laffer curve formula. Combined with the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node, the actual benefit score of each repair group is determined, and then the adjustment evaluation value of each repair group is calculated. The repair group with the smallest adjustment evaluation value is determined as the target repair group, and each test defect in the target repair group is repaired. A strategy adjustment plan that can make the system under test achieve the best actual timeliness and repair the test defects that need to be repaired can be obtained, which fills the gap in the adjustment of the test strategy.

[0056] The step division of the above methods is only for clear description. When implemented, they can be combined into one step or some steps can be split and decomposed into multiple steps. As long as they include the same logical relationship, they are all within the scope of protection of this application; adding insignificant modifications to the algorithm or process or introducing insignificant designs without changing the core design of the algorithm and process are all within the scope of protection of this application.

[0057] Another embodiment of the present application proposes a system test strategy adjustment system based on the Laffer curve. The implementation details of the system test strategy adjustment system based on the Laffer curve proposed in this embodiment are described in detail below. The following content is only the implementation details provided for ease of understanding and is not necessary for the implementation of this example.

[0058] Figure 2 : is a schematic diagram of a structure of a system test strategy adjustment system based on a Laffer curve proposed in this embodiment, the system comprising:

[0059] The ideal evaluation module 201 is used to evaluate the ideal timeliness score of the system under test according to the project background and the project feasibility study report, and to evaluate the ideal time node of the system under test according to the actual situation of the project and the market demand of the project.

[0060] The defect assessment module 202 is used to determine the test defects existing in the system under test and to assess the repair time required to repair each test defect.

[0061] The actual timeliness score calculation module 203 is used to select the test defects that need to be repaired based on the severity of each test defect, obtain several repair groups, calculate the total repair time for each repair group, and substitute it into the Laffer curve formula, combining the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node to determine the actual benefit score of each repair group, wherein the test defects that need to be repaired selected in different repair groups are different.

[0062] The adjusted evaluation value calculation module 204 is used to calculate the absolute value of the difference between the actual benefit score and the ideal benefit score of each repair group as the adjusted evaluation value of each repair group.

[0063] The adjustment determination module 205 is used to determine the repair group with the smallest adjustment evaluation value as the target repair group.

[0064] The adjustment execution module 206 is used to repair each test defect in the target repair group to complete the system test strategy adjustment.

[0065] It is worth mentioning that all modules involved in this embodiment are logic modules. In practical applications, a logic unit can be a physical unit, a part of a physical unit, or a combination of multiple physical units. In addition, in order to highlight the innovative part of this application, this embodiment does not introduce units that are not closely related to solving the technical problems proposed by this application, but this does not mean that there are no other units in this embodiment.

[0066] It is not difficult to find that this embodiment is a system embodiment corresponding to the above method embodiment, and this embodiment can be implemented in conjunction with the above method embodiment. The relevant technical details and technical effects mentioned in the above embodiments are still valid in this embodiment, and in order to reduce repetition, they are not repeated here. Accordingly, the relevant technical details mentioned in this embodiment can also be applied in the above embodiments.

[0067] Another embodiment of the present application provides an electronic device, whose specific structure is as follows: Figure 3 As shown, it includes: at least one processor 301; and a memory 302 that is communicatively connected to the at least one processor 301; wherein the memory 302 stores instructions that can be executed by the at least one processor 301, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor 301 so that the at least one processor 301 can execute a system test strategy adjustment method based on a Laffer curve as described in the above-mentioned method embodiments.

[0068] Among them, the memory and the processor are connected in a bus manner, and the bus may include any number of interconnected buses and bridges, and the bus connects various circuits of one or more processors and memories together. The bus can also connect various other circuits such as peripheral devices, voltage regulators, and power management circuits, which are well known in the art and will not be further described in this article. The bus interface is responsible for providing an interface between the bus and the transceiver. The transceiver can be one component or multiple components, such as multiple receivers and transmitters, providing a unit for communicating with various other devices on a transmission medium. The data processed by the processor is transmitted on a wireless medium through an antenna, and further, the antenna also receives data and transmits the data to the processor.

[0069] The processor is responsible for managing the bus and general processing, and can also provide various functions, including timing, peripheral interfaces, voltage regulation, power management, and other control functions. Memory can be used to store data used by the processor when performing operations.

[0070] Another embodiment of the present application provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program. When the computer program is executed by a processor, it can implement a system test strategy adjustment method based on a Laffer curve as described in the above method embodiments.

[0071] That is, those skilled in the art can understand that all or part of the steps in the above-mentioned embodiment method can be completed by instructing the relevant hardware through a program, and the program is stored in a storage medium, including a number of instructions to enable a device (which can be a single-chip microcomputer, chip, etc.) or a processor to execute all or part of the steps of the method described in each embodiment of the present application. The aforementioned storage medium includes: U disk, mobile hard disk, ROM (Read-Only Memory), RAM (Random Access Memory), disk or optical disk and other media that can store program codes.

[0072] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the above embodiments are specific embodiments for implementing the present application, and in actual applications, various changes may be made thereto in form and detail without departing from the spirit and scope of the present application.

Claims

1. A method for adjusting a system test strategy based on a Laffer curve, characterized in that: include: According to the project background and project feasibility study report, the ideal benefit score of the system under test is evaluated, and according to the actual situation of the project and the market demand of the project, the ideal time node of the system under test is evaluated; Identify the test defects in the system under test and estimate the repair time required to repair each test defect; Based on the severity of each test defect, the test defects that need to be repaired are selected to obtain several repair groups. The total repair time for each repair group is calculated and substituted into the Laffer curve formula. The actual benefit score of each repair group is determined by combining the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node. Among them, the test defects that need to be repaired in different repair groups are different. The absolute value of the difference between the actual benefit score and the ideal benefit score of each restoration group is calculated as the adjusted evaluation value of each restoration group, and the restoration group with the smallest adjusted evaluation value is determined as the target restoration group; Repair each test defect in the target repair group to complete the system test strategy adjustment.

2. A method for adjusting a system test strategy based on a Laffer curve as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that: The determining of the test defects existing in the system under test and evaluating the repair time required to repair each test defect respectively include: Determine the test defects existing in the system under test and evaluate the severity of each test defect; the severity of the test defect is represented by the severity level, which is divided into crash level, severe level, ordinary level, minor level and recommendation level from high to low. The existence of crash level test defects causes the system under test to be unable to operate normally, and the existence of severe level test defects causes partial functional failure of the system under test. If there is no test defect or only a recommendation level test defect exists, the test is terminated directly; Check whether there are crash-level test defects and severe-level test defects. If there are no crash-level test defects and severe-level test defects, evaluate the repair time required to repair each test defect respectively. Otherwise, directly repair each crash-level test defect and each severe-level test defect until there are no crash-level test defects and severe-level test defects, and then evaluate the repair time required to repair each test defect respectively.

3. A method for adjusting a system test strategy based on a Laffer curve as claimed in claim 2, characterized in that: Based on the severity of each test defect, select the test defects that need to be repaired, obtain several repair groups, and calculate the total repair time for each repair group, including: The project leader selects the test defects that need to be repaired based on the severity of each test defect to obtain several repair groups. For each repair group, the repair time corresponding to each test defect in the repair group is accumulated, and the total repair time for each repair group is calculated.

4. A method for adjusting a system test strategy based on a Laffer curve as claimed in claim 3, characterized in that: For the kth restoration group, the actual benefit score of the kth restoration group is determined by the following formula: Among them, A represents the ideal benefit score of the system under test, B represents the ideal time node of the system under test, represents the total modification time of the kth repair group, where k is an integer greater than 0, S real Represents the actual benefit score of the kth restoration group.

5. The method for adjusting system test strategy based on Laffer curve according to claim 3, characterized in that: After evaluating the ideal benefit score and ideal time node of the system under test, the ideal benefit score and ideal time node of the system under test are normalized to 1; For the kth restoration group, the actual benefit score of the kth restoration group is determined by the following formula: in, represents the total modification time of the kth repair group, where k is an integer greater than 0, S real Represents the actual benefit score of the kth restoration group.

6. A system test strategy adjustment system based on Laffer curve, characterized in that: include: The ideal evaluation module is used to evaluate the ideal benefit score of the system under test based on the project background and project feasibility study report, and to evaluate the ideal time node of the system under test based on the actual situation of the project and the market demand of the project; Defect assessment module, used to determine the test defects existing in the system under test and evaluate the repair time required to repair each test defect; The actual benefit score calculation module is used to select the test defects that need to be repaired based on the severity of each test defect, obtain several repair groups, calculate the total repair time of each repair group, and substitute it into the Laffer curve formula, combine the ideal benefit score and the ideal time node, and determine the actual benefit score of each repair group, wherein the test defects that need to be repaired selected in different repair groups are different; An adjusted evaluation value calculation module is used to calculate the absolute value of the difference between the actual benefit score and the ideal benefit score of each repair group as the adjusted evaluation value of each repair group; An adjustment determination module, used for determining the repair group with the smallest adjustment evaluation value as the target repair group; The adjustment execution module is used to repair each test defect in the target repair group to complete the system test strategy adjustment.

7. An electronic device, characterized in that: include: at least one processor; and, a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; The memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor so that the at least one processor can execute a system test strategy adjustment method based on a Laffer curve as described in any one of claims 1 to 5.

8. A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, characterized in that: When the computer program is executed by a processor, it can implement a method for adjusting a system test strategy based on a Laffer curve as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 5.

Images