Multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent auditing method and device and computer equipment

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of data, in particular to a multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent auditing method and device and computer equipment. The method comprises the steps of obtaining a target script and a script type corresponding to the target script; according to the script type, dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions are determined; according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, the target script is audited from the multiple dimensions, and an audit score is obtained; wherein the multiple dimensions at least comprise a security dimension, a performance dimension, a readability and / or maintainability dimension and a function integrity dimension; under the condition that the auditing score is lower than a score threshold value, feeding back the target script to auditing equipment corresponding to the auditing party; and obtaining a script auditing result returned by the auditing party from the auditing equipment.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application relates to the field of data technology, and in particular to a method, device and computer equipment for intelligent auditing of multi-node operation and maintenance scripts. Background Art

[0002] With the development of computer technology, developers often write scripts during development. In order to ensure the quality of the scripts, it is necessary to perform quality checks on the scripts written by developers to determine whether the scripts written by developers meet the calling conditions or application conditions of the corresponding projects.

[0003] The traditional verification method is that developers check scripts based on the corresponding function call rules or the application rules of various codes. Manual verification relies on experience and accuracy is difficult to guarantee. Summary of the invention

[0004] Based on this, it is necessary to provide a multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit method, device and computer equipment that can improve the accuracy of script audit in response to the above technical problems.

[0005] In a first aspect, the present application provides a multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit method, including:

[0006] Get the target script and the script type corresponding to the target script;

[0007] According to the script type, determine the dimension weights corresponding to multiple dimensions;

[0008] According to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, the target script is reviewed from multiple dimensions to obtain a review score; wherein the multiple dimensions at least include a security dimension, a performance dimension, a readability and / or maintainability dimension, and a functional integrity dimension;

[0009] When the audit score is lower than the score threshold, the target script is fed back to the audit device corresponding to the auditor;

[0010] From the audit device, obtain the script audit result returned by the auditor.

[0011] In one of the embodiments, the script type includes at least one of an application script type, a data processing script type, a system management script type, a machine learning script type, and an embedded system script.

[0012] In one embodiment, the target script is audited from multiple dimensions according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions to obtain an audit score, including:

[0013] According to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions and the target audit strategy, the target script is audited from multiple dimensions to obtain the dimension scores corresponding to each dimension;

[0014] The audit score is determined based on the dimension scores corresponding to each dimension.

[0015] In one embodiment, according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, according to the target audit strategy, the target script is audited from multiple dimensions to obtain the dimension scores corresponding to each dimension, including:

[0016] According to the dimension weight corresponding to the security dimension, the target script is audited in the security dimension from at least one of the code injection protection sub-dimension, the data verification sub-dimension, and the permission control sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the security dimension;

[0017] According to the dimension weight corresponding to the performance dimension, the target script is reviewed in the performance dimension from at least one of the execution speed sub-dimension, the resource sub-dimension, and the scalability sub-dimension to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the performance dimension;

[0018] According to the dimension weight corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension, a dimension review of the readability and / or maintainability dimension is performed on the target script from at least one of the code clarity sub-dimension and the comment sub-dimension to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension;

[0019] According to the dimension weight corresponding to the functional completeness dimension, the functional completeness dimension of the target script is reviewed from at least one of the requirement realization sub-dimension, the boundary condition sub-dimension and the test coverage sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the functional completeness dimension.

[0020] In one embodiment, according to the dimension weight corresponding to the security dimension, the target script is audited in the security dimension from the code injection protection sub-dimension, the data verification sub-dimension, and the permission control sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the security dimension, including:

[0021] From the code injection protection sub-dimension, the input content in the target script is verified to obtain the first security score;

[0022] From the data verification sub-dimension, the format, specification and content of the data in the target script are verified to obtain the second security score;

[0023] From the permission control sub-dimension, the execution permission of the target script is verified to obtain the third security score;

[0024] A dimension score corresponding to the security dimension is determined based on the first security score, the second security score, the third security score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the security dimension.

[0025] In one embodiment, according to the dimension weight corresponding to the performance dimension, the target script is reviewed in terms of the execution speed sub-dimension, the resource sub-dimension, and the scalability sub-dimension, to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the performance dimension, including:

[0026] From the execution speed sub-dimension, the execution time of the target script and the target type of code block in the target script are verified to obtain a first performance score; from the resource usage sub-dimension, the resource usage of the target device when the target script is executed in the target device is verified to obtain a second performance score;

[0027] From the scalability sub-dimension, the expected execution of the target script under the set concurrency conditions is verified to obtain the third performance score;

[0028] The dimension score corresponding to the performance dimension is determined according to the first performance score, the second performance score, the third performance score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the performance dimension.

[0029] In one embodiment, according to the dimension weight corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension, the readability and / or maintainability dimension of the target script is reviewed from at least one of the code clarity sub-dimension and the comment sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension, including:

[0030] From the code clarity sub-dimension, the code logic, variable definitions, and conditional statements of the target script are verified to obtain a first readability and / or maintainability score;

[0031] From the comment sub-dimension, the comments and documentation of the target script are verified to obtain a second readability and / or maintainability score;

[0032] A dimension score corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension is determined according to the first readability and / or maintainability score, the second readability and / or maintainability score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension.

[0033] In one embodiment, according to the dimension weight corresponding to the functional integrity dimension, the dimension review of the functional integrity dimension is performed on the target script from at least one of the requirement realization sub-dimension, the boundary condition sub-dimension, and the test coverage sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the functional integrity dimension, including:

[0034] From the sub-dimension of requirement realization, the requirements and use cases corresponding to the target script are verified to obtain the first functional completeness score;

[0035] From the boundary condition sub-dimension, the execution of the target script under various target boundary conditions is verified to obtain the second functional completeness score;

[0036] From the test coverage sub-dimension, the execution of the target script under the set test conditions is verified to obtain the third functional completeness score;

[0037] A dimension score corresponding to the functional integrity dimension is determined according to the first functional integrity score, the second functional integrity score, the third functional integrity score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the functional integrity dimension.

[0038] In one embodiment, determining the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions respectively according to the script type includes:

[0039] According to the script type and the script running environment corresponding to the target script, the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions are determined.

[0040] In a second aspect, the present application also provides a multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit device, including:

[0041] An acquisition module is used to acquire a target script and a script type corresponding to the target script;

[0042] A weight determination module is used to determine the dimension weights corresponding to multiple dimensions according to the script type;

[0043] An automatic audit module, used to audit the target script from multiple dimensions according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, and obtain an audit score; wherein the multiple dimensions at least include a security dimension, a performance dimension, a readability and / or maintainability dimension, and a functional integrity dimension;

[0044] A manual review module is used to feed back the target script to the review device corresponding to the reviewer when the review score is lower than the score threshold;

[0045] The return module is used to obtain the script audit results returned by the auditor from the audit device.

[0046] The above-mentioned multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit method, device and computer equipment can greatly improve the efficiency of auditing by automatically determining the weight of multiple dimensions according to the script type and conducting multi-dimensional auditing on the target script. Multi-dimensional auditing ensures that the script is evaluated in multiple key aspects (such as security, performance, readability, maintainability and functional integrity), thereby improving the accuracy of the audit.

[0047] Through strict multi-dimensional auditing of scripts, problems in the scripts can be discovered and corrected in a timely manner, thereby improving the overall quality of the scripts. The audit scoring mechanism allows the quality problems of the scripts to be quantified, making it easier for developers or auditors to quickly locate and improve them. Dynamically adjusting the weights of multiple dimensions according to the script type makes the audit process more flexible and able to adapt to different types of script audit requirements. Through the automated audit and feedback mechanism, project managers can more conveniently monitor the audit status and quality of scripts. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0048] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application or related technologies, the drawings required for use in the embodiments of the present application or 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 related drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying creative work.

[0049] Figure 1 A schematic diagram of a process of a multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit method in one embodiment;

[0050] Figure 2 A flowchart of the steps for obtaining an audit score in one embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0051] In order to make the purpose, technical solution and advantages of the present application more clearly understood, the present application is further described in detail below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and embodiments. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are only used to explain the present application and are not used to limit the present application.

[0052] In an exemplary embodiment, Figure 1 As shown, a multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit method is provided, including the following:

[0053] S101, obtaining a target script and a script type corresponding to the target script.

[0054] The weights of different dimensions (such as security dimension, performance dimension, readability and / or maintainability dimension, and functional integrity dimension) are determined according to the type of the target script (such as batch script, Shell script, Python script, etc.). Different types of scripts may have different importance and requirements in different dimensions.

[0055] S102: Determine the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions according to the script type.

[0056] It is understandable that different types of scripts have their specific uses, execution environments, and language characteristics, which will affect the weighting of dimensions. Next, determine the multiple dimensions to be audited, including at least security, performance, readability and / or maintainability, and functional completeness. These dimensions are key aspects of evaluating script quality, and each dimension has its specific audit criteria and importance.

[0057] Specifically, weights are assigned to each dimension based on the script type. The weight assignment should be based on the characteristics of the script type and the needs of the actual application scenario. For example, for scripts that process sensitive information, the weight of the security dimension should be higher; for scripts that need to run efficiently, the weight of the performance dimension should be higher. Optionally, the dimension weights may not be fixed, but need to be dynamically adjusted according to actual conditions.

[0058] Optionally, the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions can be determined as follows:

[0059] Method 1): By analyzing the audit results and feedback of similar scripts in the past, the frequency and severity of problems in each dimension are counted, and the weight of each dimension is inferred. Collect and analyze a large amount of historical data, use statistical methods (such as variance analysis, principal component analysis, etc.) to determine the relative size of the impact of each dimension on the script quality, and then assign weights.

[0060] Method 2): Use a multi-objective decision analysis method to treat script review as a multi-objective decision problem. By comprehensively considering the objectives and constraints of multiple dimensions, a specific decision analysis method (such as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the priority diagram method) is used to determine the weights. First, a decision hierarchy is constructed to clarify the objective layer, criterion layer, and solution layer; then experts compare the elements of the same level in pairs to construct a judgment matrix; finally, the eigenvalues ​​and eigenvectors of the judgment matrix are calculated to obtain the relative weights of each dimension.

[0061] S103, review the target script from multiple dimensions according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, and obtain a review score.

[0062] Among them, the multiple dimensions include at least a security dimension, a performance dimension, a readability and / or maintainability dimension, and a functional integrity dimension.

[0063] Optionally, ensure that the weights of various dimensions have been determined according to the script type, such as the security dimension weight is 0.3, the performance dimension weight is 0.25, the readability and maintainability dimension weights are 0.15 and 0.1 respectively, and the functional completeness dimension weight is 0.2.

[0064] Develop specific audit standards for each dimension. For example, the security dimension may include whether the code has security vulnerabilities, whether there is a risk of data leakage, etc.; the performance dimension may include script execution speed, resource consumption, etc. According to the established audit standards, audit the target scripts one by one. During the audit process, record the problems and scores of each dimension.

[0065] For each dimension, a score is given based on the audit results. The score range can be 0-10, indicating the severity of the problem or the degree of satisfaction of the dimension. For example, if there is no problem in the security dimension, it will get 10 points; if there is a serious security problem, it may get 0 points.

[0066] The total audit score is calculated using the following formula: Total audit score = security dimension score × security dimension weight + performance dimension score × performance dimension weight + readability dimension score × readability dimension weight + maintainability dimension score × maintainability dimension weight + functional completeness dimension score × functional completeness dimension weight.

[0067] S104: When the audit score is lower than the score threshold, the target script is fed back to the audit device corresponding to the auditor.

[0068] Optionally, check the audit score of the target script and compare it with the preset score threshold. If the audit score is lower than the score threshold, it means that the script may have problems or deficiencies in some aspects and needs further review and improvement. Determine the auditor responsible for the script audit and its corresponding audit device based on the audit history, type or other relevant information of the script. Prepare detailed feedback information, including the audit score of the script, the score of each dimension, the existing problems and improvement suggestions. Send the target script and feedback information to the audit device corresponding to the auditor through appropriate communication methods (such as network transmission, email sending, etc.).

[0069] S105, obtaining the script audit result returned by the auditor from the audit device.

[0070] Optionally, after feeding the target script back to the audit device, you need to wait for the audit party to review the script and return the audit results. Check the audit device regularly to see if there are new audit results returned. This can be achieved through polling, event triggering, or push notifications. Once there are new audit results on the audit device, receive these data immediately. The audit results may include modification suggestions for the script, a decision to pass or reject, and any additional comments or instructions.

[0071] Parse the review results and convert them into a format that can be understood and processed. This may include extracting modification suggestions, updating script status, recording review comments, etc. Based on the review results, update the status of the target script. For example, if the script is approved, mark it as "reviewed"; if the script is rejected, mark it as "needs modification". It may also be necessary to notify the developers, testers, or other stakeholders related to the script so that they understand the review status of the script and take further actions as needed.

[0072] The above-mentioned multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit method can greatly improve the efficiency of the audit by automatically determining the weights of multiple dimensions according to the script type and conducting a multi-dimensional audit of the target script. The multi-dimensional audit ensures that the script is evaluated in multiple key aspects (such as security, performance, readability, maintainability, and functional integrity), thereby improving the accuracy of the audit. By conducting a strict multi-dimensional audit of the script, problems in the script can be discovered and corrected in a timely manner, thereby improving the overall quality of the script. The audit scoring mechanism enables the quality problems of the script to be quantified, making it easier for developers or auditors to quickly locate and improve them. Dynamically adjusting the weights of multiple dimensions according to the script type makes the audit process more flexible and can adapt to different types of script audit requirements. Through the automated audit and feedback mechanism, project managers can more conveniently monitor the audit status and quality of the script.

[0073] In an exemplary embodiment, the script type includes at least one of an application script type, a data processing script type, a system management script type, a machine learning script type, and an embedded system script.

[0074] Among them, application script type: This type of script is mainly used to develop applications, such as web applications, desktop applications, or mobile applications. They usually contain user interaction logic, business logic processing, and communication with application backend services.

[0075] Data processing script type: This type of script focuses on data processing tasks, such as data cleaning, transformation, aggregation, and analysis. They are often used for batch processing or real-time data stream processing, and may involve database operations, file reading and writing, etc.

[0076] System administration script type: These scripts are used to perform system administration tasks, such as system configuration, monitoring, backup, and recovery. They may involve operating system-level operations, such as process management, file permission settings, etc.

[0077] Machine Learning Script Type: This type of script focuses on the training, evaluation, and deployment of machine learning models. They usually include steps such as data processing, feature extraction, model training, prediction, and performance evaluation.

[0078] Embedded system script type: This type of script is used for the development and management of embedded systems, such as microcontroller programming, device driver development, etc. They are usually closely related to the hardware and need to consider resource constraints and real-time requirements.

[0079] In an exemplary embodiment, Figure 2 As shown, according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, the target script is reviewed from multiple dimensions to obtain the review score, including:

[0080] S201, according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions and the target audit strategy, the target script is audited from multiple dimensions to obtain the dimension scores corresponding to each dimension.

[0081] Optionally, specify the dimensions that need to be audited, which include at least security, performance, readability and / or maintainability, and functional integrity. Based on the preset target audit strategy, these strategies may include specific audit standards, methods or tools to guide the audit process of each dimension. For each dimension, apply the corresponding audit strategy to audit the target script. This may involve code review, performance testing, readability assessment, etc. Based on the audit results, give a score for each dimension. This score reflects the performance or satisfaction of the target script in that dimension.

[0082] S202: Determine the audit score based on the dimension score corresponding to each dimension.

[0083] Optionally, collect scores on all dimensions, which represent the performance or quality of the target script in various aspects. Use pre-determined dimension weights that reflect the importance of different dimensions in the overall review. Calculate the overall review score of the target script by multiplying the score of each dimension with its corresponding weight and adding the results. The review score is a comprehensive indicator used to evaluate the overall quality or performance of the target script. Higher scores indicate that the script performs well in multiple dimensions, while lower scores may point out areas that need improvement.

[0084] Furthermore, according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, according to the target audit strategy, the target script is audited from multiple dimensions to obtain the dimension scores corresponding to each dimension, including:

[0085] (1) According to the dimension weight corresponding to the security dimension, the target script is audited in the security dimension from at least one of the code injection protection sub-dimension, the data verification sub-dimension, and the permission control sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the security dimension.

[0086] (2) According to the dimension weight corresponding to the performance dimension, the target script is audited in terms of the performance dimension from at least one of the execution speed sub-dimension, the resource sub-dimension, and the scalability sub-dimension to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the performance dimension.

[0087] (3) According to the dimension weights corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimensions, a dimension review of the readability and / or maintainability dimensions is performed on the target script from at least one of the code clarity sub-dimension and the comment sub-dimension to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimensions.

[0088] (4) Based on the dimension weight corresponding to the functional completeness dimension, the functional completeness dimension of the target script is reviewed from at least one of the requirement realization sub-dimension, the boundary condition sub-dimension, and the test coverage sub-dimension to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the functional completeness dimension.

[0089] In an exemplary embodiment, according to the dimension weight corresponding to the security dimension, the target script is audited in the security dimension from the code injection protection sub-dimension, the data verification sub-dimension, and the permission control sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the security dimension, including:

[0090] (11) From the code injection protection sub-dimension, verify the input content in the target script and obtain the first security score;

[0091] Exemplarily, the evaluation method of the code injection protection sub-dimension is:

[0092] Are there situations where user input is embedded directly into commands or configuration files?

[0093] Is the input escaped or validated?

[0094] Scoring criteria:

[0095] 0-2 points: There is an obvious risk of injection and no protective measures are in place.

[0096] 3-5 points: There is an injection risk, but there are some protective measures.

[0097] 6-8 points: There is a small injection risk, and there are good protection measures.

[0098] 9-10 points: There is no injection risk, and all user input is strictly validated and escaped.

[0099] (12) From the data verification sub-dimension, the format, specification and content of the data in the target script are verified to obtain a second security score;

[0100] Exemplarily, the evaluation method of the data verification sub-dimension is:

[0101] Is the format, range, etc. of the data entered by the user verified?

[0102] Is adequate checking done before input?

[0103] Scoring criteria:

[0104] 0-2 points: No data verification was performed.

[0105] 3-5 points: Some data verification is done, but it is incomplete or not strict.

[0106] 6-8 points: Comprehensive data verification has been conducted, but verification of certain specific scenarios may be lacking.

[0107] 9-10 points: Rigorous and comprehensive data validation was performed, covering all possible input situations.

[0108] (13) From the permission control sub-dimension, verify the execution permission of the target script and obtain the third security score;

[0109] Exemplarily, the evaluation method of the permission control sub-dimension is:

[0110] Are appropriate permissions used when executing the script (such as execution by a non-root user)?

[0111] Are the read and write permissions for files and directories set appropriately?

[0112] Scoring criteria:

[0113] 0-2 points: No permission control is performed and all operations are performed with the highest permissions.

[0114] 3-5 points: There is some authority control, but it is not comprehensive or strict.

[0115] 6-8 points: Relatively reasonable permission control is implemented, but there may be some deficiencies.

[0116] 9-10 points: Strict permission control, all operations are performed with the minimum necessary permissions.

[0117] (14) Determine the dimension score corresponding to the security dimension based on the first security score, the second security score, the third security score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the security dimension.

[0118] From the code injection protection sub-dimension, check whether there are potential code injection vulnerabilities in the script, such as SQL injection, XSS attack, command injection, etc. Review all input validation and data cleaning mechanisms. Check whether parameterized queries or precompiled statements are used to prevent SQL injection. Review HTML output to ensure that all user-entered data is properly encoded to prevent XSS attacks. Check whether there are appropriate mechanisms to limit the commands or scripts that can be executed to prevent command injection. Ensure that all input data is properly validated and cleaned to prevent the injection of malicious data.

[0119] From the data validation sub-dimension, review the data validation logic of all input points to ensure that they conform to the expected format and type. Check whether there is an appropriate error handling mechanism to handle invalid or unexpected input. Evaluate whether the data cleaning process is strict enough to prevent potential injection attacks.

[0120] From the permission control sub-dimension, ensure that the permission control mechanism in the script is effective and secure to prevent unauthorized access and operations. Review the user authentication and authorization mechanisms to ensure that they meet security standards. Check whether there are appropriate access control lists (ACLs) or role-based access controls (RBAC) to implement fine-grained permission management. Evaluate whether there are mechanisms to detect and respond to privilege escalation attacks or other unauthorized access attempts.

[0121] After completing the above review, assign a score to each sub-dimension based on its weight and the number or severity of issues found. Then, add up the weighted sum of these scores to get the overall score for the security dimension. For example, if the weight of code injection protection is 0.4, the weight of data validation is 0.3, and the weight of permission control is 0.3, then the overall score can be calculated by the following formula:

[0122] Overall score = (code injection protection sub-dimension score * 0.4) + (data verification sub-dimension score * 0.3) + (authority control sub-dimension score * 0.3)

[0123] In this way, the performance of the target script in terms of security dimensions can be comprehensively evaluated, and appropriate improvement measures can be taken as needed.

[0124] In an exemplary embodiment, according to the dimension weight corresponding to the performance dimension, the target script is audited in the performance dimension from the execution speed sub-dimension, the resource sub-dimension, and the scalability sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the performance dimension, including:

[0125] (21) From the execution speed sub-dimension, the execution time of the target script and the code blocks of the target type in the target script are verified to obtain a first performance score.

[0126] Exemplary evaluation method of execution speed sub-dimension:

[0127] Does the script execution time fall within reasonable limits?

[0128] Does the script contain code snippets that may cause performance bottlenecks (e.g. long loops, complex calculations)?

[0129] Scoring criteria:

[0130] 0-2 points: The execution time is obviously too long and there is an obvious performance bottleneck.

[0131] 3-5 points: The execution time is long and there is some room for performance optimization.

[0132] 6-8 points: The execution time is short, but there is still room for further optimization.

[0133] 9-10 points: The execution time is very short and the performance is excellent.

[0134] (22) From the resource usage sub-dimension, the resource usage of the target device when the target script is executed in the target device is verified to obtain a second performance score.

[0135] Exemplary evaluation methods for the resource use sub-dimension:

[0136] Evaluation method:

[0137] Is the script's memory and CPU usage reasonable while it's running?

[0138] Does the script cause excessive use of system resources (e.g. high memory consumption, high CPU usage)?

[0139] Scoring criteria:

[0140] 0-2 points: Resource usage is obviously too high and may cause system instability.

[0141] 3-5 points: Resource usage is high but within an acceptable range.

[0142] 6-8 points: Resources are used reasonably, with no obvious waste of resources.

[0143] 9-10 points: Resources are used very efficiently with almost no waste.

[0144] (23) From the scalability sub-dimension, the expected execution of the target script under the set concurrency conditions is verified to obtain the third performance score.

[0145] Exemplary evaluation method of scalability sub-dimension:

[0146] Can the script run properly with large data sets or high concurrency?

[0147] Does the script scale well and maintain stable performance under increased load?

[0148] Scoring criteria:

[0149] 0-2 points: Performance is severely degraded or even fails to run in large data sets or high concurrency situations.

[0150] 3-5 points: Performance is significantly reduced in large data sets or high concurrency situations, but it can still run.

[0151] 6-8 points: Good performance with slight degradation in large data sets or high concurrency.

[0152] 9-10 points: The performance is very stable with no noticeable drop in performance under large data sets or high concurrency conditions.

[0153] (24) Determine the dimension score corresponding to the performance dimension based on the first performance score, the second performance score, the third performance score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the performance dimension.

[0154] Evaluate the execution speed of your script to ensure that it completes its task in a reasonable amount of time. Use performance analysis tools to measure the execution time of your script. Check for unnecessary loops, recursion, or repeated calculations. Evaluate the efficiency of your algorithm to ensure that you are using the best data structures and algorithms.

[0155] Evaluate the script's use of resources, including memory, CPU, and disk I / O. Use resource monitoring tools to measure resource consumption while the script is running. Check for memory leaks or unnecessary resource usage. Evaluate the script's resource usage efficiency when processing large amounts of data.

[0156] Evaluate the extensibility of the script in the face of future changes in requirements. Check whether the script is designed in a modular way to facilitate adding or modifying functions. Evaluate whether the script is easy to integrate with other applications or services. Check whether there is appropriate documentation and comments so that other developers can understand and maintain the code.

[0157] After completing the above review, assign a score to each sub-dimension based on its weight and the number or severity of issues found. Then, add up the weighted sum of these scores to get the overall score for the performance dimension. For example, if the weight of execution speed is 0.5, the weight of resources is 0.3, and the weight of scalability is 0.2, then the overall score can be calculated by the following formula:

[0158] Overall score = (execution speed sub-dimension score * 0.5) + (resource sub-dimension score * 0.3) + (scalability sub-dimension score * 0.2)

[0159] In this way, the performance of the target script in the performance dimension can be comprehensively evaluated, and corresponding optimization measures can be taken as needed.

[0160] In an exemplary embodiment, according to the dimension weight corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension, the readability and / or maintainability dimension of the target script is reviewed from at least one of the code clarity sub-dimension and the comment sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension, including:

[0161] (31) from the code clarity sub-dimension, verify the code logic, variable definitions, and conditional statements of the target script to obtain a first readability and / or maintainability score;

[0162] Exemplarily, the code clarity sub-dimension is evaluated as follows:

[0163] Is the code structure clear and the logic easy to understand?

[0164] Are the variable names descriptive and easy to understand?

[0165] Are deeply nested and complex conditional statements avoided?

[0166] Scoring criteria:

[0167] 0-2 points: The code structure is confusing and difficult to understand.

[0168] 3-5 points: The code structure is relatively clear, but some of the logic is complex

[0169] 6-8 points: The code structure is clear and most of the logic is easy to understand.

[0170] 9-10 points: The code structure is very clear and the logic is simple and easy to understand.

[0171] (32) from the annotation sub-dimension, verify the annotations and documentation of the target script to obtain a second readability and / or maintainability score;

[0172] Exemplarily, the evaluation method of the annotation sub-dimension is:

[0173] Are there adequate comments to explain the functionality and logic of key sections?

[0174] Are instructions and documentation provided?

[0175] Are there any cases where the comments in the code do not match the actual code?

[0176] Scoring criteria:

[0177] 0-2 points: Almost no comments and documentation.

[0178] 3-5 points: There are some notes, but they are not sufficient or detailed.

[0179] 6-8 points: There are relatively detailed comments and documentation, but there is still room for improvement.

[0180] 9-10 points: The comments and documentation are very detailed and cover all key sections.

[0181] (33) Determining a dimension score corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension based on the first readability and / or maintainability score, the second readability and / or maintainability score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension.

[0182] Evaluate the script's code to see if it is clear and easy to understand, and if it complies with coding standards and best practices. Check if the code follows consistent naming conventions and indentation styles. Evaluate if the code's logical structure is clear, and if there are too many nested or complex conditional statements. Check if meaningful variable and function names are used to make it easier to understand the purpose and functionality of the code. Evaluate if appropriate design patterns or architectures are used to improve the readability of the code.

[0183] Evaluate whether the comments in the script are sufficient and useful to help understand the function and purpose of the code. Check whether the comments in the code accurately describe the function and logic of the code. Evaluate whether the comments are detailed enough so that other developers can understand how the code works. Check whether the comments are updated in a timely manner to reflect the latest changes to the code. Evaluate whether the comments help explain complex algorithms or data structures.

[0184] Furthermore, the target script can be evaluated from the code style dimension. The code style dimension is evaluated in the following way:

[0185] Is a consistent coding style and best practices followed?

[0186] Do you follow relevant coding standards (such as PEP 8, Google's Python Style Guide, etc.)?

[0187] Are hard coding and magic numbers avoided?

[0188] Scoring criteria:

[0189] 0-2 points: The code style is chaotic and does not comply with any coding standards.

[0190] 3-5 points: Some code follows the specification, but not consistently.

[0191] 6-8 points: Most of the code follows the specification, with only a few inconsistencies.

[0192] 9-10 points: The coding style is very consistent and fully complies with coding standards and best practices.

[0193] After completing the above review, assign a score to each sub-dimension based on its weight and the number or severity of issues found. These scores are then weighted and summed to obtain an overall score for the readability and / or maintainability dimensions. For example, if the weight of code clarity is 0.6 and the weight of comments is 0.4, then the overall score can be calculated by the following formula:

[0194] Overall score = (code clarity sub-dimension score * 0.6) + (comment sub-dimension score * 0.4)

[0195] In this way, the performance of the target script in terms of readability and / or maintainability can be comprehensively evaluated, and corresponding improvement measures can be taken as needed to improve the quality and maintainability of the code.

[0196] In an exemplary embodiment, according to the dimension weight corresponding to the functional integrity dimension, the dimension review of the functional integrity dimension is performed on the target script from at least one of the requirement realization sub-dimension, the boundary condition sub-dimension, and the test coverage sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the functional integrity dimension, including:

[0197] (41) From the requirement realization sub-dimension, the requirements and use cases corresponding to the target script are verified to obtain the first functional completeness score.

[0198] For example, the evaluation method of the demand realization sub-dimension can be:

[0199] Does the script fully implement the intended functionality?

[0200] Does the script meet all requirements and use cases?

[0201] Scoring criteria:

[0202] 0-2 points: Most of the expected functions are not realized and basic needs are not met.

[0203] 3-5 points: Some expected functions are achieved, but some key functions are missing.

[0204] 6-8 points: Most of the expected functions are achieved, but a few minor functions are missing.

[0205] 9-10 points: All expected functionality is fully implemented, meeting all requirements and use cases.

[0206] (42) From the boundary condition sub-dimension, the execution of the target script under various target boundary conditions is verified to obtain the second functional completeness score.

[0207] Exemplarily, the evaluation method of the boundary condition sub-dimension may be:

[0208] Does the script handle all possible edge conditions and exceptions?

[0209] Is the script stable across a wide range of inputs and operations?

[0210] Scoring criteria:

[0211] 0-2 points: Boundary conditions and exceptions are not handled, and errors are prone to occur.

[0212] 3-5 points: Some boundary conditions and abnormal situations are handled, but not comprehensively.

[0213] 6-8 points: Most boundary conditions and exceptions are handled, but there is still room for improvement.

[0214] 9-10 points: Comprehensively handles all boundary conditions and abnormal situations, and performs stably.

[0215] (43) From the test coverage sub-dimension, the execution of the target script under the set test conditions is verified to obtain the third functional completeness score.

[0216] Exemplarily, the test coverage sub-dimension may be evaluated in the following manner:

[0217] Is the script adequately tested?

[0218] Is the test coverage up to standard and does it cover all critical paths and edge cases?

[0219] Scoring criteria:

[0220] 0-2 points: Almost no testing is done and the test coverage is very low.

[0221] 3-5 points: Some tests have been performed, but the test coverage is not high.

[0222] 6-8 points: The test was quite thorough, but there is still room for improvement.

[0223] 9-10 points: Comprehensive testing has been carried out with high test coverage, covering all critical paths and edge cases.

[0224] (44) Determine the dimension score corresponding to the functional integrity dimension based on the first functional integrity score, the second functional integrity score, the third functional integrity score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the functional integrity dimension.

[0225] The requirement realization sub-dimension evaluates whether the script fully realizes all the specified functional requirements. Check whether all the functions in the script have been realized one by one by comparing them with the requirements document. Verify whether the output of the script meets the expected results in the requirements document. Check whether there are any missing or unrealized functional points.

[0226] The boundary condition sub-dimension evaluates the performance of the script when handling boundary conditions to ensure that the function can work properly under extreme or special circumstances. Test the behavior of the script under boundary values ​​(such as maximum value, minimum value, null value, etc.). Check whether the script can correctly handle abnormal input or unexpected situations. Verify the stability of the script when resources are limited (such as insufficient memory, insufficient disk space).

[0227] Test coverage sub-dimension, evaluate the test coverage of the script to ensure that all functions are fully tested. Use automated testing tools to measure the code coverage of the script. Check whether there are test cases for each function. Verify whether the test cases cover all possible input and output scenarios.

[0228] After completing the above review, assign a score to each sub-dimension based on its weight and the number or severity of issues found. Then, add up the weighted sum of these scores to get the overall score for the functional completeness dimension. For example, if the weight of requirement implementation is 0.5, the weight of boundary conditions is 0.3, and the weight of test coverage is 0.2, then the overall score can be calculated by the following formula:

[0229] Overall score = (demand realization sub-dimension score * 0.5) + (boundary condition sub-dimension score * 0.3) + (test coverage sub-dimension score * 0.2)

[0230] In this way, the performance of the target script in the dimension of functional completeness can be comprehensively evaluated, and corresponding improvement measures can be taken as needed to ensure that the script fully meets all functional requirements and works stably in various situations.

[0231] Furthermore, the target script can be evaluated from the dimension of reusability, for example:

[0232] 1. Modular design

[0233] Evaluation method:

[0234] Is the script modularly designed and are the functions split into independent modules or functions?

[0235] Are there clear interfaces and dependencies between modules?

[0236] Scoring criteria:

[0237] 0-2 points: The script has no modular design and all functions are concentrated together.

[0238] 3-5 points: The script has some modular design, but the module division is not clear.

[0239] 6-8 points: The script adopts modular design, but the interfaces and dependencies between modules are not clear.

[0240] 9-10 points: The script adopts a clear modular design, and there are clear interfaces and dependencies between modules.

[0241] 2. Configuration Flexibility

[0242] Evaluation method:

[0243] Are the script's configuration items flexible and can they be easily used in different environments?

[0244] Is the configuration passed via external files or parameters rather than hard-coded in the script?

[0245] Scoring criteria:

[0246] 0-2 points: All script configuration items are hard-coded, with almost no configuration flexibility.

[0247] 3-5 points: Some configuration items can be passed through external files or parameters, but the flexibility is not high.

[0248] 6-8 points: Most configuration items can be passed through external files or parameters, but some are still hard-coded.

[0249] 9-10 points: All configuration items can be passed through external files or parameters, and the configuration is very flexible.

[0250] 3. Dependency Management

[0251] Evaluation method:

[0252] Does the script manage dependencies properly to avoid dependency conflicts?

[0253] Does the script clearly list all dependencies and provide a way to install them?

[0254] Scoring criteria:

[0255] 0-2 points: Dependencies are not managed, dependencies are not listed, or installation methods are unclear.

[0256] 3-5 points: Some dependencies are listed, but they are not well managed and there may be dependency conflicts.

[0257] 6-8 points: Most dependencies are listed and installation methods are provided, but management needs to be improved.

[0258] 9-10 points: All dependencies are clearly listed, and clear installation methods are provided, and dependency management is perfect.

[0259] In an exemplary embodiment, dimension weights corresponding to multiple dimensions are determined according to the script type, including: determining the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions according to the script type and the script running environment corresponding to the target script.

[0260] Optionally, determine the type of target script, such as batch script, Shell script, Python script, etc. Analyze the common uses, execution environment, and potential risk points of this type of script. Determine in which environment the target script will run, such as Windows, Linux, Unix, and other operating systems.

[0261] Analyze the requirements of the operating environment for script performance, resource usage, security, etc. Assign a weight to each dimension (such as security, performance, readability, and functional completeness) based on the script type and operating environment. The weight should reflect the importance of the dimension in the specific script type and operating environment. Record the determined dimension weights in the project documentation for team members to understand and reference. If necessary, the weights can be adjusted based on project progress or environmental changes. Use the determined weights to conduct a multi-dimensional review of the target script. Based on the review results, identify potential problems and improvement points in the script.

[0262] It should be understood that, although the steps in the flowcharts involved in the above embodiments are displayed in sequence according to the indication of the arrows, these steps are not necessarily executed in sequence according to the order indicated by the arrows. Unless there is a clear explanation in this article, the execution of these steps is not strictly limited in order, and these steps can be executed in other orders. Moreover, at least a part of the steps in the flowcharts involved in the above embodiments may include multiple steps or multiple stages, and these steps or stages are not necessarily executed at the same time, but can be executed at different times, and the execution order of these steps or stages is not necessarily carried out in sequence, but can be executed in turn or alternately with other steps or at least a part of the steps or stages in other steps.

[0263] Based on the same inventive concept, the embodiment of the present application also provides a multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit device for implementing the multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit method involved above. The implementation scheme for solving the problem provided by the device is similar to the implementation scheme recorded in the above method, so the specific limitations in one or more multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit device embodiments provided below can refer to the limitations of the multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit method above, and will not be repeated here.

[0264] In an exemplary embodiment, a multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent auditing device is provided, comprising:

[0265] An acquisition module is used to acquire a target script and a script type corresponding to the target script;

[0266] A weight determination module is used to determine the dimension weights corresponding to multiple dimensions according to the script type;

[0267] An automatic audit module, used to audit the target script from multiple dimensions according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, and obtain an audit score; wherein the multiple dimensions at least include a security dimension, a performance dimension, a readability and / or maintainability dimension, and a functional integrity dimension;

[0268] A manual review module is used to feed back the target script to the review device corresponding to the reviewer when the review score is lower than the score threshold;

[0269] The return module is used to obtain the script audit results returned by the auditor from the audit device.

[0270] Each module in the above multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit device can be implemented in whole or in part by software, hardware and their combination. Each module can be embedded in or independent of the processor in the computer device in the form of hardware, or can be stored in the memory of the computer device in the form of software, so that the processor can call and execute the operations corresponding to each module above.

[0271] In an exemplary embodiment, a computer device is provided, including a memory and a processor, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory, and when the processor executes the computer program, the following steps are implemented:

[0272] Get the target script and the script type corresponding to the target script;

[0273] According to the script type, determine the dimension weights corresponding to multiple dimensions;

[0274] According to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, the target script is reviewed from multiple dimensions to obtain a review score; wherein the multiple dimensions at least include a security dimension, a performance dimension, a readability and / or maintainability dimension, and a functional integrity dimension;

[0275] When the audit score is lower than the score threshold, the target script is fed back to the audit device corresponding to the auditor;

[0276] From the audit device, obtain the script audit result returned by the auditor.

[0277] In one embodiment, a computer readable storage medium is provided, on which a computer program is stored, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the following steps are implemented:

[0278] Get the target script and the script type corresponding to the target script;

[0279] According to the script type, determine the dimension weights corresponding to multiple dimensions;

[0280] According to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, the target script is reviewed from multiple dimensions to obtain a review score; wherein the multiple dimensions at least include a security dimension, a performance dimension, a readability and / or maintainability dimension, and a functional integrity dimension;

[0281] When the audit score is lower than the score threshold, the target script is fed back to the audit device corresponding to the auditor;

[0282] From the audit device, obtain the script audit result returned by the auditor.

[0283] In one embodiment, a computer program product is provided, comprising a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, implements the following steps:

[0284] Get the target script and the script type corresponding to the target script;

[0285] According to the script type, determine the dimension weights corresponding to multiple dimensions;

[0286] According to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, the target script is reviewed from multiple dimensions to obtain a review score; wherein the multiple dimensions at least include a security dimension, a performance dimension, a readability and / or maintainability dimension, and a functional integrity dimension;

[0287] When the audit score is lower than the score threshold, the target script is fed back to the audit device corresponding to the auditor;

[0288] From the audit device, obtain the script audit result returned by the auditor.

[0289] The technical features of the above embodiments may be combined arbitrarily. To make the description concise, not all possible combinations of the technical features in the above embodiments are described. However, as long as there is no contradiction in the combination of these technical features, they should be considered to be within the scope of this application.

[0290] The above-described embodiments only express several implementation methods of the present application, and the descriptions thereof are relatively specific and detailed, but they cannot be understood as limiting the scope of the present application. It should be pointed out that, for a person of ordinary skill in the art, several variations and improvements can be made without departing from the concept of the present application, and these all belong to the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the present application shall be subject to the attached claims.

Claims

1. A multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit method, characterized in that: The method comprises: Obtain a target script and a script type corresponding to the target script; Determine the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions respectively according to the script type; According to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, the target script is reviewed from multiple dimensions to obtain a review score; When the audit score is lower than the score threshold, feeding back the target script to the audit device corresponding to the auditor; The script audit result returned by the auditor is obtained from the audit device.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The script types include at least one of an application script type, a data processing script type, a system management script type, a machine learning script type, and an embedded system script, and the multiple dimensions include at least a security dimension, a performance dimension, a readability and / or maintainability dimension, and a functional integrity dimension;.

3. The method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that: The target script is audited from multiple dimensions according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions to obtain an audit score, including: According to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, and according to the target audit strategy, the target script is audited from multiple dimensions to obtain the dimension scores corresponding to each dimension; The audit score is determined based on the dimension scores corresponding to each dimension.

4. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that According to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, and according to the target audit strategy, the target script is audited from multiple dimensions to obtain the dimension scores corresponding to each dimension, including: According to the dimension weight corresponding to the security dimension, the target script is audited in the security dimension from at least one of the code injection protection sub-dimension, the data verification sub-dimension, and the permission control sub-dimension to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the security dimension; According to the dimension weight corresponding to the performance dimension, the target script is reviewed in the performance dimension from at least one of the execution speed sub-dimension, the resource sub-dimension, and the scalability sub-dimension to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the performance dimension; According to the dimension weight corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension, performing a dimension review of the readability and / or maintainability dimension on the target script from at least one of the code clarity sub-dimension and the comment sub-dimension to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension; According to the dimension weight corresponding to the functional integrity dimension, the target script is audited in the functional integrity dimension from at least one of the requirement realization sub-dimension, the boundary condition sub-dimension and the test coverage sub-dimension to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the functional integrity dimension.

5. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that According to the dimension weight corresponding to the security dimension, the target script is audited in the security dimension from the code injection protection sub-dimension, the data verification sub-dimension and the permission control sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the security dimension, including: From the code injection protection sub-dimension, verify the input content in the target script to obtain a first security score; From the data verification sub-dimension, the format, specification and content of the data in the target script are verified to obtain a second security score; From the permission control sub-dimension, the execution permission of the target script is verified to obtain a third security score; A dimension score corresponding to the security dimension is determined according to the first security score, the second security score, the third security score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the security dimension.

6. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that According to the dimension weight corresponding to the performance dimension, the target script is reviewed in terms of the execution speed sub-dimension, the resource sub-dimension, and the scalability sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the performance dimension, including: From the execution speed sub-dimension, the execution time of the target script and the target type of code block in the target script are verified to obtain a first performance score; from the resource usage sub-dimension, the resource usage of the target device when the target script is executed in the target device is verified to obtain a second performance score; From the scalability sub-dimension, the expected execution of the target script under the set concurrency conditions is verified to obtain a third performance score; A dimension score corresponding to the performance dimension is determined according to the first performance score, the second performance score, the third performance score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the performance dimension.

7. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that The step of performing a dimension review of the readability and / or maintainability dimension on the target script from at least one of the code clarity sub-dimension and the comment sub-dimension according to the dimension weight corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension to obtain a dimension score corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension includes: From the code clarity sub-dimension, verify the code logic, variable definition and conditional statements of the target script to obtain a first readability and / or maintainability score; From the annotation sub-dimension, verify the annotations and description documents of the target script to obtain a second readability and / or maintainability score; A dimension score corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension is determined according to the first readability and / or maintainability score, the second readability and / or maintainability score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the readability and / or maintainability dimension.

8. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that According to the dimension weight corresponding to the functional integrity dimension, the target script is reviewed in the dimension of functional integrity from at least one of the requirement realization sub-dimension, the boundary condition sub-dimension, and the test coverage sub-dimension to obtain the dimension score corresponding to the functional integrity dimension, including: From the requirement realization sub-dimension, the requirements and use cases corresponding to the target script are verified to obtain a first functional completeness score; From the boundary condition sub-dimension, the execution of the target script under various target boundary conditions is verified to obtain a second functional completeness score; From the test coverage sub-dimension, the execution of the target script under the set test conditions is verified to obtain a third functional completeness score; A dimension score corresponding to the functional integrity dimension is determined according to the first functional integrity score, the second functional integrity score, the third functional integrity score, and the dimension weight corresponding to the functional integrity dimension.

9. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Determining the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions respectively according to the script type includes: According to the script type and the script running environment corresponding to the target script, dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions are determined.

10. A multi-node operation and maintenance script intelligent audit device, characterized in that: The device comprises: An acquisition module, used to acquire a target script and a script type corresponding to the target script; A weight determination module, used to determine the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions respectively according to the script type; An automatic audit module, used to audit the target script from multiple dimensions according to the dimension weights corresponding to the multiple dimensions, and obtain an audit score; wherein the multiple dimensions at least include a security dimension, a performance dimension, a readability and / or maintainability dimension, and a functional integrity dimension; A manual review module, configured to feed back the target script to a review device corresponding to the reviewer when the review score is lower than a score threshold; The return module is used to obtain the script audit result returned by the auditor from the audit device.

Images