Standard digitalization and automated application verification system based on markup language

Abstract

The present invention relates to the field of markup language technology, specifically a standard digitalization and automated application verification system based on markup language, including a label boundary comparison module, a weight boundary adjustment module, a dependency verification module, a permission mapping comparison module and a cloud session recording module. In the present invention, the quantifiable content of the standard is decomposed into a structured function body through markup language, and multi-dimensional collaborative comparison and automatic conflict screening of parameter boundaries are realized. The input segment is adjusted in combination with the weight priority to ensure the coordination of segments between multiple parameters. Relying on dependency analysis and structured link verification, dependency breaks or inconsistencies are identified and processed. The permission mapping mechanism is used to refine parameter access and call qualifications. Combined with cloud session tracking and call snapshot integration, an automatic verification system is established that runs through the entire process of digital expression, functional logic, permission linkage and cloud call, thereby improving consistency control under multi-parameter conditions and cross-platform automated business execution.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of markup languages, and in particular to a standard digitalization and automated application verification system based on markup languages. Background Art

[0002] Markup language technology primarily involves the use of formal grammar systems such as Extensible Markup Language (XML) and Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) to describe, store, parse, and exchange various types of structured and semi-structured data. This includes hierarchical representation of data structures, tag and attribute definition, document structure standardization, data interoperability, and cross-platform data sharing. This standardization of information expression and multi-system data exchange is achieved through rule-based markup language systems. Traditional standard digitization and automated application verification systems involve converting various standard documents from paper or electronic formats into computer-processable data structures. These systems utilize static templates or fixed rules to enter parameters, perform conditional judgments, and perform simple logical verification on the quantifiable portions of the standards. These systems rely on predefined data items and pre-set verification rules to determine results and perform consistency checks on single parameters or limited parameter combinations. These systems also digitize the quantifiable, executable portions of the standards using markup languages. This digitization transforms the functions within the standards that implement specific requirements into functions. Based on the function structure, API interfaces are created to automatically generate industrial control code, which is then called by application software or industrial computers via the cloud.

[0003] Existing technologies often operate in a static input and template solidification manner when dealing with multi-parameter associations, which makes it difficult to deal with parameter boundary interactions and logical conflicts. Parameter dependencies are limited to preset templates, and when encountering complex dependencies or condition changes, judgment omissions are prone to occur. The authority management link relies on single field mapping and lacks multi-dimensional matching and dynamic identification, resulting in incomplete conflict detection of multi-parameter combinations when standards are digitized, insufficient consistency in parameter calls, and fragmented automated processes, making it difficult to meet the collaborative verification and multi-platform integration requirements of standards in complex scenarios. Summary of the Invention

[0004] In order to solve the technical problems that the existing technology often operates in a static input and template solidification mode when processing multi-parameter associations, which makes it difficult to deal with parameter boundary interactions and logical conflicts, parameter dependencies are limited by preset templates, and when encountering complex dependencies or condition changes, it is easy to make omissions in judgments, and the authority management link relies on a single field mapping, lacks multi-dimensional matching and dynamic identification, resulting in incomplete conflict detection of multi-parameter combinations during standard digitization, insufficient parameter call consistency, fragmented automation processes, and difficulty in meeting the collaborative verification and multi-platform integration requirements of standards in complex scenarios, the embodiment of the present invention provides a standard digitization and automated application verification system based on markup language. The technical solution is as follows:

[0005] On the one hand, a standard digital and automated application verification system based on markup language is provided, including:

[0006] The label boundary comparison module reads the parameter content in the input type structure segment based on the label parameters bound to the standard function body structure, compares the boundary intersection and coverage relationship between the parameters, screens out non-overlapping or conflicting boundaries, determines logical contradictions, and obtains parameter overlap contradiction characteristics;

[0007] The weight boundary adjustment module compares the boundary segments of the priority label and other labels based on the parameter overlapping and contradictory characteristics and the weight order of the function body description fields, analyzes the segment overlap status, adjusts the coverage of the associated segments, optimizes the input structure, and obtains the input segment coordination structure;

[0008] The dependency verification module determines the dependency attributes of each function input segment based on the input segment coordination structure, parses the dependency relationship, compares the statement chain order and nesting, identifies dependency breaks or inconsistencies, and obtains dependency link offset features;

[0009] The permission mapping comparison module compares the structural combination with complete markings based on the dependency link offset characteristics, analyzes the user parameter type identifier, determines the permission relationship between the calling environment and the output type check segment, optimizes the access control field and the mapping path, and forms a permission structure mapping degree.

[0010] On the other hand, the parameter overlapping contradiction features include interval conflict labels, contradiction type labels, and conflict distribution indexes; the input segment coordination structure includes segment adjustment sequence, coordination priority, and optimization mapping relationship; the dependent link offset features include broken node identification, offset degree quantification results, and abnormal link numbers; the authority structure mapping degree includes authority level mapping, user role identification, and verification result index.

[0011] On the other hand, the label boundary comparison module includes:

[0012] The label parameter check submodule analyzes the label parameters in the input type structure segment based on the label parameters bound to the standard function body structure. By comparing the boundary start and end points of each parameter, it performs standardized and unified processing, adjusts the boundary expression, and obtains a set of standard boundary intervals.

[0013] The boundary intersection judgment submodule analyzes the overlap and intersection relationship between the start and end points of the standard boundary interval set, determines whether there is complete overlap, partial overlap or no intersection, identifies potential conflicts by comparing the interval endpoint relationship, and generates an overlap relationship recognition result;

[0014] The logical contradiction determination submodule determines whether there is a logical contradiction between the parameters based on the overlapping relationship identification results. For non-overlapping and related parameter combinations, the context inconsistency problem is identified by analyzing the function body call sequence and dependency relationship, and the parameter overlapping contradiction characteristics are obtained.

[0015] On the other hand, the weight boundary adjustment module includes:

[0016] The overlap detection submodule analyzes the boundary segments between the priority tag and other tags based on the overlapping and conflicting characteristics of the parameters, compares the start and end points of each tag, determines their overlapping or intersecting status, identifies the existing overlapping areas, filters the conflicting areas, and obtains the overlapping area identification results;

[0017] The boundary adjustment submodule readjusts the overlapping area based on the overlapping area identification result, prioritizes the weight-critical labels, and adjusts the overlapping parts by moving, expanding or shrinking the boundary segments to obtain an optimized boundary configuration;

[0018] The structure coordination submodule analyzes and optimizes the coordination of input parameters according to the optimized boundary configuration, adjusts the coverage of the associated segments according to the boundary processing rules in the function execution body, and obtains the input segment coordination structure.

[0019] On the other hand, the dependency verification module includes:

[0020] The dependency attribute identification submodule analyzes the dependency attributes in each quantitative function input type structure segment based on the input segment coordination structure, parses the dependency relationships in the function description one by one, compares whether each parameter depends on other parameter settings, and obtains a dependency attribute mapping set;

[0021] The dependency chain analysis submodule determines the statement chain sequence and nesting relationship in the function structure based on the dependency attribute mapping set, compares the position of each dependency attribute in the execution sequence, analyzes the existing sequence breaks or logical inconsistencies, and identifies incoherent parts in the dependency expression to obtain the dependency chain sequence check result;

[0022] The link offset detection submodule checks the broken or offset parts in the link according to the dependency chain sequence inspection results, locates the node offset information in the dependency chain, and analyzes its impact on the function execution logic to obtain the dependency link offset characteristics.

[0023] On the other hand, the node offset information in the positioning dependency chain is calculated using the formula:

[0024] ;

[0025] Analyze its impact on the function execution logic and obtain the dependent link offset characteristics ,in, Represents the first The offset position of the node, Represents the offset position of the previous node, Representative Node The weight factor, Represents the first The node's dependency value, Represents the value of the previous dependent node, Represents the total number of nodes, Represents the total number of dependent nodes.

[0026] On the other hand, the permission mapping comparison module includes:

[0027] The permission relationship comparison submodule compares the user parameter type identifier in the function body based on the dependency link offset feature, determines the permission relationship between the calling environment and the output type check segment, checks the context information of the permission identifier, identifies potential inconsistencies, and generates a permission relationship inconsistency feature;

[0028] The parameter mapping optimization submodule adjusts the matching degree between the access control field and the parameter mapping path according to the inconsistent permission relationship characteristics, optimizes the correlation between the fields, and generates an optimized mapping path;

[0029] The permission mapping confirmation submodule identifies the correct calling combination of permission mapping based on the optimized mapping path, judges the matching between the permission identifier and the associated parameters, determines the mapping correctness between the permission and the parameters, and forms the permission structure mapping degree.

[0030] On the other hand, the matching between the authority identifier and the associated parameters is determined by the formula:

[0031] ;

[0032] Calculate the mapping degree of the permission structure ,in, Representative The weight value of the permission identifier, Representative The value of the associated parameter, Representative The coverage of parameter mapping paths, Representative The permission weight of each parameter, represents the weight adjustment factor, Indicates the total number of permission identifiers and parameters involved in mapping calculation.

[0033] In another aspect, the system further comprises:

[0034] The cloud session recording module analyzes the filtered function call structure based on the permission structure mapping, determines the cloud platform deployment status, uploads the input and output processes according to the API interface configuration, determines the communication status between the calling host and the cloud service, creates an index number, and obtains the cloud call snapshot data volume;

[0035] The cloud call snapshot data volume includes a session identification code, a cloud communication flag, and a behavior tracking sequence.

[0036] On the other hand, the cloud session recording module includes:

[0037] The session structure identification submodule analyzes and filters the function body call structure based on the permission structure mapping degree, determines whether the structure has been deployed on the cloud platform, checks whether the input and output processes comply with the standard API interface configuration, and obtains the cloud deployment matching result by comparing the function body with the deployed structure;

[0038] The communication verification submodule determines whether the communication between the calling source host and the cloud service is established based on the cloud deployment matching result, checks the reliability of the communication path, determines the stability of the communication signal, and obtains the communication establishment status verification;

[0039] The index generation submodule verifies the communication establishment status, collects parameter mapping and behavior sequence, creates a unique index number, analyzes the identity information of the session in the cloud platform, and generates cloud call snapshot data volume through the collected session information.

[0040] The beneficial effects brought about by the technical solution provided by the embodiment of the present invention include at least:

[0041] Through markup language, the standard's quantifiable content is decomposed into a structured function body to achieve multi-dimensional collaborative comparison of parameter boundaries and automatic conflict screening. The input segments are adjusted in combination with weight priority to ensure segment coordination between multiple parameters. Relying on dependency analysis and structured link verification, dependency breaks or inconsistencies are identified and handled. The permission mapping mechanism is used to refine parameter access and call qualifications. Combined with cloud session tracking and call snapshot integration, an automatic verification system is established throughout the entire process of digital expression, functional logic, permission linkage and cloud call, thereby improving consistency control under multi-parameter conditions and cross-platform automated business execution. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0042] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention, the following briefly introduces the drawings required for use in the description of the embodiments. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative work.

[0043] Figure 1 A schematic diagram of the system of the present invention;

[0044] Figure 2 Schematic diagram of the system framework of the present invention;

[0045] Figure 3 This is a flowchart of the label boundary comparison module of the present invention;

[0046] Figure 4 This is a flow chart of the weight boundary adjustment module of the present invention;

[0047] Figure 5 This is a flow chart of the dependency verification module of the present invention;

[0048] Figure 6 This is a flowchart of the permission mapping comparison module of the present invention;

[0049] Figure 7 This is a flow chart of the cloud session recording module of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0050] The technical solution of the present invention is described below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.

[0051] In the embodiments of the present invention, words such as "exemplarily" and "for example" are used to indicate examples, illustrations, or explanations. Any embodiment or design described as an "exemplary" in the present invention should not be interpreted as being preferred or advantageous over other embodiments or designs. Rather, the use of the word "exemplary" is intended to present concepts in a concrete manner. Furthermore, in the embodiments of the present invention, "and / or" can mean both or either of the two.

[0052] In the embodiments of the present invention, the terms "image" and "picture" may sometimes be used interchangeably. It should be noted that, when the distinction is not emphasized, the meanings they convey are the same. The terms "of," "corresponding," and "corresponding" may sometimes be used interchangeably. It should be noted that, when the distinction is not emphasized, the meanings they convey are the same.

[0053] In the embodiments of the present invention, sometimes a subscript such as W1 may be written as a non-subscript such as W1. When the difference is not emphasized, the meanings to be expressed are the same.

[0054] In order to make the technical problems, technical solutions and advantages to be solved by the present invention clearer, a detailed description will be given below with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments.

[0055] The embodiment of the present invention provides a standard digital and automated application verification system based on markup language, such as Figure 1As shown, the system includes:

[0056] The label boundary comparison module sequentially reads the parameter contents set in the input type structure segment based on the label parameters bound to the standard function body structure, compares the intersection and overlap relationships between the parameter boundaries, screens out boundaries with no overlap or overlapping conflicts, and determines whether there are logical contradictions between each set of parameters to obtain parameter overlap contradiction characteristics;

[0057] The weight boundary adjustment module is based on the parameter overlapping and conflicting characteristics. It compares the boundary segments of the priority label and other labels according to the weight order of the function body description fields, analyzes the overlapping status between the segments, adjusts the coverage of the associated segments, and optimizes the input parameter structure in combination with the boundary processing rules recorded by the function execution body to obtain the input segment coordination structure.

[0058] The dependency verification module determines the dependency attributes involved in each quantitative function input type structure segment based on the input segment coordination structure, parses the dependency relationships in the function description, compares the sequence and nesting of function structure statement chains, identifies broken or inconsistent parts in the dependency expression, and obtains the dependency link offset characteristics;

[0059] The permission mapping comparison module compares the complete structural combinations based on the dependency link offset characteristics, analyzes the user parameter type identifiers of the function body, determines the permission relationship between the calling environment and the output type verification segment, optimizes the matching degree between the access control field and the parameter mapping path, identifies the correct calling combination for permission mapping, and forms the permission structure mapping degree;

[0060] The cloud session recording module analyzes the filtered function call structure based on the permission structure mapping, determines that the structure has been deployed on the cloud platform, uploads the input and output processes according to the standard API interface configuration, determines the communication establishment status between the call source host and the cloud service, collects parameter mapping and behavior sequence, creates a unique index number, and obtains the cloud call snapshot data volume.

[0061] Parameter overlap contradiction features include interval conflict labels (automatically marked by the label boundary comparison module after analyzing the intersection, overlap, and separation status of each input parameter boundary, derived from conflict detection during the parameter interval comparison process), contradiction type labels (analyzing boundary intersection relationships through logical operations to classify and mark different types of conflicts (such as interval intersection, complete non-intersection, and partial overlap), and the data comes from the type output of the boundary determination algorithm), conflict distribution indexes (during batch parameter comparison, the system counts and records the distribution positions and occurrence frequencies of various types of conflicts in the parameter set, and automatically generates a conflict distribution data index), input segment coordination structures include segment adjustment sequences (generated based on the dynamic adjustment records of priority labels and other label boundaries by the weight boundary adjustment module, and the data comes from the historical process of segment boundary changes), coordination priorities (automatically parsed by the priority setting in the function body description field, and the system assigns priority data to each segment adjustment based on the order of weight labels), and optimized mapping relationships (generated based on the input parameter structure formed after all segments are coordinated and the actual mapping effect, derived from the final mapping relationship table of the adjusted parameter segments), and dependency link offset features include broken node identifiers (generated by the dependency verification module when analyzing parameter dependency paths). The system automatically records the node number that caused the break when a break or interruption occurs, and automatically records the node number that caused the break); quantification of the degree of deviation (relying on the structured comparison of dependency links, the system uses an algorithm to calculate the degree of dependency deviation and outputs a standardized quantitative result); abnormal link numbering (when the system detects inconsistent or abnormal dependency expressions, it automatically assigns numbers to abnormal links to facilitate traceability and tracking); permission structure mapping, including permission level mapping (the permission mapping comparison module compares user parameters with permission level settings to automatically generate permission level mapping relationships for each parameter); user role identification (the system automatically extracts and assigns role identification from user parameter type identification and calling environment information); verification result index (based on the pass or fail result of each permission verification, the system assigns a unique index to each verification result and records it in the verification log); cloud call snapshot data volume, including session identification code (each time a cloud function is called, the system automatically generates a unique session identification code to identify the call session); cloud communication flag (during the call process, the system monitors the cloud service communication status and generates flag data to confirm whether communication is successfully established); and behavior tracking sequence (the system records and aggregates various operations and parameter changes in each session in the order of calls to form a complete behavior tracking sequence).

[0062] In Module 1, the standard function body structure refers to a functional structural unit digitally described in a markup language and expressed in a functional form based on standard requirements. Each structure includes a function name, input and output parameters, boundary conditions, and execution logic, serving as the foundation for standard implementation and automated verification. Label parameters refer to the quantitative parameters used as inputs within the function body structure. Parameters are defined with recognizable tags (such as labels or attribute names) and are the subject of subsequent boundary, dependency, and permission comparisons and verifications. Parameter content refers to the data actually described or represented by each label parameter, such as silicon content, voltage range, and length range. Intersection and overlap relationships refer to the overlap, inclusion, or separation between the numerical intervals or ranges of different parameters, which are used to determine the rationality or conflict of parameter settings. Boundaries refer to the quantifiable start and end points of intervals within the parameter content (such as minimum and maximum limits) and are used to compare and screen for intersections or conflicts between parameters. Logical contradictions occur when the boundary intervals of two or more parameters cannot logically hold simultaneously. For example, if two intervals do not overlap but should theoretically be related, this constitutes a logical contradiction.

[0063] In Module 2, the description field refers to the field in the function body structure that provides a detailed description of each parameter, execution process, input and output, etc., usually expressed as comments, instructions or proprietary fields, to support subsequent weight, dependency and other judgments; the priority label refers to the parameter that is given a higher priority according to standards or design requirements among multiple label parameters involved in comparison or adjustment. The high-priority label has the dominant power when adjusting conflicts; other labels refer to the remaining parameter labels that participate in boundary adjustment together with the priority label; the overlapping state refers to the situation where there is partial or complete overlap between the intervals between parameters, which is an important basis for boundary judgment and conflict analysis; the coverage of the associated segment refers to the actual range of the interval when the parameter interval needs to be extended, shrunk or moved during the boundary adjustment process; the function execution body refers to the specific code or logic body in the function body structure used to actually execute verification, calculation and other logic, which is the core of achieving standard automation; the boundary processing rules refer to the specific operation logic and processing specifications for adjusting, screening and optimizing parameter boundary conflicts and overlaps in the function execution body.

[0064] In Module 3, quantitative function refers to a function body structure based on standard requirements that can realize a certain function. This structure has clear input, output and processing flow and supports quantitative verification; dependency attribute refers to the relationship attribute of a parameter or parameter group that needs to refer to and call other parameter settings in function or logic, such as the value of a parameter is affected by another parameter; statement chain order and nesting refer to the arrangement order and hierarchical nesting relationship of execution logic, conditional judgment and other statements in the function body or code structure, which directly affects the judgment and implementation of dependent conditions; dependency expression refers to the specific expression content of describing the dependency relationship between parameters in the form of markup language, logical expression, etc.

[0065] In Module 4, the parameter type identifier refers to the data type, role or purpose identification information of the function body or API interface input parameter, such as "user ID", "authorization flag", etc., which is used for permission or function determination; the access control field refers to the parameter or attribute used to define or verify data access rights, and to determine whether the parameters are qualified for operation under different users and environments in the system; the parameter mapping path refers to the transmission and association path of the parameter from input to function execution, permission determination and other processes, which is used to ensure accurate data flow and permission control; correct permission mapping means that the parameters, users and their permission identifiers all comply with the rules set by the system during the mapping and determination process, without any problems such as mismatching or missing matching.

[0066] In Module 5, the unique index number refers to a data identifier used to uniquely identify a cloud function body call session, which facilitates tracking, storage, retrieval and subsequent auditing. It is usually automatically generated by the system and bound to the data related to the session.

[0067] like Figure 2 and Figure 3 As shown, the label boundary comparison module includes:

[0068] The label parameter check submodule analyzes the label parameters in the input type structure segment based on the label parameters bound to the standard function body structure. By comparing the boundary start and end points of each parameter, it performs standardized and unified processing, adjusts the boundary expression, and obtains a set of standard boundary intervals.

[0069] First, all label parameters in the input segment are extracted. Labeled parameters typically have clear upper and lower limits. For example, the value range of the "voltage range" label is 10V to 220V, while the value range of the "silicon content" label is 0.5% to 3%. Next, for each label parameter, the label boundary intervals are unified into a standardized set of boundary intervals based on the definitions and requirements provided by the standard function body structure. This standardization process involves converting all boundary values ​​to consistent numerical units to ensure that comparison operations are performed under a unified scale. For example, some systems require that all parameter units be in international standard units (such as meters and kilograms). Therefore, boundary values ​​are automatically converted to standard units to ensure the validity of comparison operations. During the standardization process, this adjustment ensures that all input data is processed within a unified boundary framework, eliminating comparison errors caused by differences in units or numerical ranges between different labels. Finally, a set of formatted and standardized intervals is output, ensuring that parameter comparisons in subsequent operations are feasible and accurate.

[0070] The boundary intersection judgment submodule analyzes the overlap and intersection relationship between the start and end points of the standard boundary interval set to determine whether there is complete overlap, partial overlap, or no intersection. By comparing the interval endpoint relationship, it identifies potential conflicts and generates an overlap relationship recognition result.

[0071] The process of boundary intersection judgment is to compare each two standard boundary intervals one by one. For example, suppose there are two label parameters, namely "voltage range" (10V to 220V) and "temperature range" (0℃ to 60℃). When performing intersection judgment, the first thing to do is to compare the endpoints of the intervals to determine whether there is any intersection. If there is an intersection, the degree of overlap of the intersection is further determined: complete overlap means that the two intervals are completely consistent, partial overlap means that some intervals overlap, and no intersection means that the two intervals do not overlap at all. The core of intersection judgment is to identify whether there is a potential conflict by comparing the numerical relationship between the interval endpoints. For example, if the intervals of two parameters are 10 to 100 and 90 to 200, respectively, there is partial overlap between them, and the overlapping part is 90 to 100. Special attention should be paid to the conflict of the intersection interval. Through such comparison, the overlapping relationship between the parameters can be accurately identified, providing a basis for subsequent logical contradiction analysis.

[0072] The logical contradiction determination submodule determines whether there are logical contradictions between parameters based on the overlapping relationship identification results. For non-overlapping but related parameter combinations, it identifies context inconsistencies by analyzing their function body call order and dependency relationships, and obtains parameter overlapping contradiction features.

[0073] Based on the overlapping relationship identification results obtained in the previous step, determine whether there are logical contradictions between the parameters. For parameter combinations that have no overlap but are logically related, such as when the interval of a label parameter does not intersect with the interval of another label, but according to actual functional requirements, there should be a relationship, the contradiction is judged by analyzing the function body call sequence and dependency relationship. For example, in the operating standard of a certain device, temperature and voltage are related parameters to each other, but for some reason, there is no intersection in the numerical interval. At this time, by analyzing the order of function body calls, it is necessary to identify that in some cases, when the voltage is too low, it will affect the temperature control, resulting in the inability to meet the expected functions of both at the same time. In specific implementation, parse the dependency relationship between voltage and temperature in the function body to check whether there are contextual inconsistencies in the function call. For example, when the voltage is 20V at a certain moment, the temperature needs to reach 120℃. This situation leads to functional conflict. Therefore, by comparing the execution order of the function body, dependency relationship, and logical expression of the tag, context inconsistency can be identified, thereby obtaining parameter overlapping contradiction characteristics.

[0074] like Figure 2 and Figure 4 As shown, the weight boundary adjustment module includes:

[0075] The overlap detection submodule analyzes the boundary segments between the priority label and other labels based on the conflicting characteristics of parameter overlap, compares the start and end points of each label, determines their overlap or intersection status, identifies the existing overlapping areas, filters the conflicting areas, and obtains the overlapping area identification results;

[0076] First, all input labels are classified to determine which labels are "priority labels," that is, labels with higher weights. Then, the boundary segments of the priority labels are compared with those of other labels, paying special attention to the starting and ending points of each label. For example, if there are two labels, namely "voltage range" (10V to 220V) and "current range" (5A to 30A), the starting and ending points are compared to determine whether there is any intersection or overlap. For each pair of labels, their intervals are checked to see if there is overlap and the overlap is determined, such as complete overlap or partial overlap. If the intervals of the two labels are exactly the same, it is considered a complete overlap. If the intervals of the two labels partially overlap, for example, "voltage range" is 10V to 200V and "current range" is 150A to 300A, then the overlapping part of the two label intervals is 150A to 200A, and this is marked as an overlapping area. In addition, whether there are any non-intersecting label intervals is determined and marked as a conflicting area. Finally, by comparing all labels, the existing overlapping areas can be identified and the conflicting areas can be filtered out, resulting in the overlapping area identification result.

[0077] The boundary adjustment submodule readjusts the overlapping areas based on the overlapping area identification results, giving priority to weight-critical labels, and adjusts the overlapping parts by moving, expanding or shrinking the boundary segments to obtain the optimized boundary configuration;

[0078] Based on the overlapping area identification results, the overlapping parts between the priority label and other labels are identified. For example, assuming that the "voltage range" label is 10V to 220V, and the "current range" label is 150A to 300A, it is found that there is an overlapping part between 150A and 220V. For this overlap, adjustments are made according to the weight of the priority label, and the voltage range interval is adjusted first and moved to a more appropriate position to ensure that the voltage and current intervals do not overlap. Specifically, the voltage range can be expanded or shrunk, or the current range can be adjusted accordingly according to actual needs. For example, under certain requirements, the current range will be adjusted to 100A to 250A to ensure that there is no overlap between the voltage and current parameters. Based on the adjustment, the boundary configuration between the labels is optimized to ensure that the interval of each label meets the actual application requirements, forming an optimized boundary configuration.

[0079] The structural coordination submodule analyzes and optimizes the coordination of input parameters based on the optimized boundary configuration, adjusts the coverage of associated segments according to the boundary processing rules in the function execution body, and obtains the input segment coordination structure;

[0080] Analyze the optimized label boundary configuration to ensure the coordination between all labels, especially under the boundary processing rules in the function execution body. Specifically, according to the rules, adjust the coverage of the associated segments to ensure the coordination of different label parameters. For example, assuming that the optimization adjustment of the voltage range and current range has been completed, the two labels will be analyzed according to the rules of the function body to ensure that they will not interfere with each other during the entire calculation process. In some cases, the label interval is fine-tuned according to the boundary rules, such as adjusting the voltage range to 10V to 210V to avoid overlap with the current range. During the optimization process, analyze the functional requirements of each label and the dependencies between them to ensure mutual coordination in the entire input parameter structure and avoid any inconsistencies. Finally, by adjusting the boundaries, an input segment coordination structure is obtained to ensure that the entire parameter structure can run smoothly in actual applications.

[0081] like Figure 2 and Figure 5 As shown, the dependency verification module includes:

[0082] The dependency attribute identification submodule analyzes the dependency attributes in each quantitative function input type structure segment based on the input segment coordination structure, parses the dependency relationships in the function description one by one, compares whether each parameter depends on other parameter settings, and obtains a dependency attribute mapping set;

[0083] Extract all label parameters from the input segment structure. The labels represent different conditions or parameters of the function input. For example, assuming the function's input segments include "voltage" (10V to 220V) and "temperature" (0℃ to 60℃), first identify the labels and further analyze the dependencies between them. For example, if the temperature setting depends on the voltage (for example, the temperature cannot be adjusted normally when the voltage is too low), then the temperature label will be marked as dependent on the voltage label. Next, further parse the dependencies according to the rules in the function description to analyze whether there are circular dependencies or other associations between parameters. For example, assume there is a dependency between the two parameters voltage and current, that is, the voltage setting affects the current range. In this case, the dependency between voltage and current is recorded to form a dependency attribute mapping set, in which each dependency is clearly labeled. This process helps understand the interactions and influences between the various parameters in the function body, and ultimately forms a complete dependency attribute mapping result, providing basic data for subsequent analysis.

[0084] The dependency chain analysis submodule determines the statement chain order and nesting relationship in the function structure based on the dependency attribute mapping set, compares the position of each dependency attribute in the execution order, analyzes the existing sequence breaks or logical inconsistencies, and identifies incoherent parts in the dependency expression to obtain the dependency chain sequence check results;

[0085] Based on the previously obtained dependency property mapping set, the execution order of each dependency is analyzed. Assume that the function structure in the system describes the impact of voltage on temperature and current. In this function body, the voltage setting is completed before the temperature and current, which means that the temperature and current settings depend on the voltage. Therefore, the system will check the statement chain order in the function execution body to confirm whether the voltage setting is executed before the temperature and current settings. If a dependency is found to be misplaced, for example, the current is set before the voltage, this will lead to logical inconsistency in the function. By checking the statement order, nested structure, etc., ensure that the execution order of each dependency is in line with expectations. For example, if the voltage setting in the function body is placed after the temperature and current settings, the order error is marked and marked as "dependency chain order check failed". At this time, a dependency chain order check result will be generated, pointing out the order problem or logical inconsistency, ensuring that the dependencies in the function structure are handled correctly to avoid functional conflicts or logical errors caused by order errors.

[0086] The link offset detection submodule checks the results of the dependency chain sequence, detects broken or offset parts in the link, locates the node offset information in the dependency chain, and analyzes its impact on the function execution logic to obtain the dependency link offset characteristics;

[0087] To locate the node offset information in the dependency chain, use the formula:

[0088] ;

[0089] Analyze its impact on the function execution logic and obtain the dependent link offset characteristics ,in, Represents the first The offset position of the node, Represents the offset position of the previous node, Representative Node The weight factor, Represents the first The node's dependency value, Represents the value of the previous dependent node, Represents the total number of nodes, Represents the total number of dependent nodes.

[0090] The dependency link offset feature refers to the overall degree of offset between nodes in the dependency chain due to offset, breakage, or inconsistency. Specifically, it measures the relative position changes between nodes in the dependency chain and the impact of these changes on dependency relationships, execution logic, or data flows. This helps identify problems in the dependency chain and provides a basis for subsequent repairs or optimizations.

[0091] If the dependency chain contains 5 nodes, their offset positions are:

[0092] , , , , ;

[0093] The offset difference is:

[0094] ;

[0095] ;

[0096] ;

[0097] ;

[0098] Each node in the dependency chain is assigned a weight factor , if the weight factor is:

[0099] , , , , ;

[0100] The weighted offset is obtained by multiplying each offset difference by the corresponding weight factor:

[0101] ;

[0102] ;

[0103] ;

[0104] ;

[0105] Then, the weighted offsets are summed to get the total weighted offset value:

[0106] ;

[0107] On this basis, further analysis is performed on the dependent nodes related to the offset, and the square value of the offset of each dependent node is calculated, such as , then the square of the offset is:

[0108] ;

[0109] ;

[0110] ;

[0111] ;

[0112] The squared values ​​are summed to give:

[0113] ;

[0114] Normalize the values ​​of dependent nodes:

[0115] , , , , ;

[0116] The normalized square of the offset is calculated as:

[0117] ;

[0118] ;

[0119] ;

[0120] ;

[0121] The sum of the normalized square values ​​is:

[0122] ;

[0123] By substituting the above summation result into the formula, we can get the dependent link offset:

[0124] ;

[0125] result It represents the sum of the offsets of all nodes in the dependency chain. By analyzing the offset of each node and the related dependencies, a comprehensive offset measurement is obtained. This result means that the offset status of the nodes in the dependency chain will affect the stability of subsequent function execution. In particular, when there is a large offset, it will cause conflicts or inconsistencies in the execution logic. Therefore, the dependency link offset provides a quantitative indicator for judging whether the dependency chain needs further correction or optimization to ensure the normal operation of the system and data consistency.

[0126] like Figure 2 and Figure 6 As shown, the permission mapping comparison module includes:

[0127] The permission relationship comparison submodule compares the user parameter type identifiers in the function body based on the dependency link offset feature, determines the permission relationship between the calling environment and the output type verification segment, checks the context information of the permission identifier, identifies potential inconsistencies, and generates permission relationship inconsistency features.

[0128] First, the user parameter type identifier is identified by analyzing the dependency link offset feature. The identifier usually defines the permission information of different roles or users when calling a function, such as "administrator permission" or "ordinary user permission". Then, the permission relationship between the user permission identifier and the calling environment is compared one by one to determine which parameters or tags have access rights in a specific execution environment. For example, suppose a function needs to access voltage and temperature data according to the permission levels of different users. Check whether the input permission identifier meets the requirements of the output type verification section. If the voltage label is only open to "administrator" permissions, but the system passes in the permission identifier of "ordinary user", it is marked as inconsistent permission relationship and an inconsistent feature is generated. In addition, the context information of the permission identifier is analyzed to check whether there is any potential inconsistency caused by permission level mismatch, and ensure that the permissions of each tag meet its due security requirements. Through operation, all potential permission relationship inconsistencies can be identified and permission relationship inconsistency features can be generated, providing a basis for subsequent permission mapping optimization.

[0129] The parameter mapping optimization submodule adjusts the matching degree between the access control field and the parameter mapping path based on the inconsistent permission relationship, optimizes the correlation between the fields, and generates an optimized mapping path;

[0130] First, based on the inconsistent permission relationship characteristics, identify which access control fields have permission mismatch problems. For example, suppose the access control rule of a certain field requires that it is accessible only to administrators, but it is found that this field is mapped to ordinary users. The access control rule will be adjusted first to ensure that the field's access rights match the user role. Next, the correlation of the parameter mapping path is optimized. By adjusting the mapping rules between parameters, the access path of each parameter is consistent with its permission identifier, avoiding illegal access or data leakage caused by permission errors. For example, suppose there are two parameters in the function body, one is the voltage parameter and the other is the temperature parameter. Check the permission relationship of these two parameters in the mapping path to ensure that the voltage parameter is only open to users with sufficient permissions, while the temperature parameter can be publicly accessed. Through this optimization, the mapping path between the access control field and the parameter can be adjusted so that all fields are consistent with their permission requirements, thereby generating an optimized mapping path, ensuring that the function will not cause errors or security risks due to permission mismatch during execution.

[0131] The permission mapping confirmation submodule identifies the correct calling combination of permission mapping based on the optimized mapping path, determines the matching between permission identifier and associated parameters, determines the correctness of the mapping between permissions and parameters, and forms the permission structure mapping degree;

[0132] To determine the match between the permission identifier and the associated parameters, use the following formula:

[0133] ;

[0134] Calculate the mapping degree of the permission structure , indicates the correctness of the mapping between permissions and parameters, and reflects the rationality of the mapping relationship, where Representative The weight value of the permission identifier is The importance or priority of each permission identifier in the overall permission structure, Representative The value of the associated parameter is The parameter value associated with the permission identifier, Representative The coverage of the parameter mapping path indicates the completeness of the parameter mapping path or the scope covered by the path. Representative The permission weight of the parameter is The weight or priority of each parameter in the permission mapping process, Represents the weight adjustment factor, a constant factor used to adjust the relative importance between different weights. Indicates the total number of permission identifiers and parameters involved in mapping calculation;

[0135] The permission structure mapping degree refers to the correctness and rationality of the matching relationship between permission identifiers and associated parameters. It is an indicator to measure the matching degree between permission identifiers and related parameters in access control, permission management and data flow. Specifically, the permission structure mapping degree evaluates whether each permission identifier is effectively associated with the correct parameters and whether this association complies with the predetermined permission control rules and data flow logic.

[0136] It is determined by the user role or permission level setting in the permission management system. The original value is 10 or 5, indicating the role weight of administrators and ordinary users. The weight value of the role is determined by the permission setting. For example, the weight of the first permission identifier is 10, and the second is 5.

[0137] Represents the actual parameter value associated with the permission identifier, such as the number of resource accesses. The original value is 15 or 7, indicating the number of accesses, etc. It is obtained through real-time data collection. For example, the value of the first associated parameter is 15 and the second is 7;

[0138] This value reflects the usage of the parameter path and is usually obtained through monitoring tools. The original value is 0.9 or 0.8, indicating 90% or 80% coverage. It is calculated through permission path monitoring. Assume that the mapping path coverage of the first parameter is 0.9 and that of the second is 0.8.

[0139] Represents the degree of influence of the parameter in permission verification, usually determined through permission analysis. The original value is 8 or 4, indicating the strong influence on the permission verification result. Through analysis and calculation, if the permission weight of the first parameter is 8, the second is 4;

[0140] Used to adjust the relative importance of different parameters, assuming its value is 1.5;

[0141] The total number is 3.

[0142] Substitute the known values ​​for calculation:

[0143] Evaluate each term individually:

[0144] when :

[0145] ;

[0146] ;

[0147] ;

[0148] So item 1 is:

[0149] ;

[0150] when :

[0151] ;

[0152] ;

[0153] ;

[0154] So the second item is:

[0155] ;

[0156] when : ;

[0157] ;

[0158] ;

[0159] So item 3 is:

[0160] ;

[0161] Substituting the result into the formula:

[0162] ;

[0163] Calculated , represents the mapping degree of the permission structure, which reflects the correctness of the mapping relationship between the permission identifier and the associated parameters. This result shows that the matching degree between the permissions and parameters in the system is low, and it is necessary to further optimize the permission settings or parameter mapping path to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of the mapping.

[0164] like Figure 2 and Figure 7 As shown, the cloud session recording module includes:

[0165] The session structure identification submodule analyzes and filters the function body call structure based on the permission structure mapping degree, determines whether the structure has been deployed on the cloud platform, checks whether the input and output processes comply with the standard API interface configuration, and obtains the cloud deployment matching result by comparing the function body with the deployed structure.

[0166] First, extract all relevant parameters from the function body call structure, identify the input and output of each function, and check whether they meet the standard API interface requirements on the cloud platform. For example, suppose the function body contains a module for voltage sensor data processing. This module needs to receive a "voltage range" label and return a "temperature data" label. Check the format, data type, value range, etc. of the input and output parameters to ensure that they match the API interface deployed on the cloud platform. Then, determine the matching status by comparing the function body with the deployed cloud structure, and check whether the call in the function body meets the cloud platform interface specifications. If the match is successful, it will be marked as deployed. If an input or output parameter does not match the cloud platform interface, it will be marked as mismatched and the specific differences will be pointed out. Finally, output the cloud deployment matching result, indicating whether the function body can be successfully deployed on the cloud platform. If it does not match, it needs to be adjusted.

[0167] The communication verification submodule determines whether the communication between the calling source host and the cloud service is established based on the cloud deployment matching results, checks the reliability of the communication path, determines the stability of the communication signal, and obtains the communication establishment status verification;

[0168] First, check whether a valid communication connection has been established between the calling source host and the cloud service. Assuming that the host address is "192.168.1.1" and the IP of the cloud service is "10.0.0.5", try to establish a connection through a network protocol (such as HTTP or WebSocket) and detect whether the communication is successfully established. Next, perform a reliability test on the communication path to verify whether there are problems such as packet loss and delay. For example, check the transmission stability of the network by sending a series of test data packets. If stability problems are found in the communication path, such as the packet loss rate exceeds 5%, report that the reliability of the communication path is poor. Then, check the stability of the communication signal, for example, analyze whether the network connection is frequently interrupted or whether there are obvious delay fluctuations. During the inspection process, evaluate the overall quality of the communication and output the communication establishment status verification result to confirm whether the connection is stable and give an evaluation based on the detected stability.

[0169] The index generation submodule verifies the communication establishment status, aggregates parameter mappings and behavior sequences, creates a unique index number, analyzes the identity information of the session in the cloud platform, and generates cloud call snapshot data based on the aggregated session information;

[0170] First, based on the results of the communication establishment status verification, check whether the session is successfully established and ensure that all relevant parameters of the session are recorded. Assuming that the parameters in the session include voltage data, temperature sensor data, etc., the transmission path, timing, and interaction information of each parameter of each data point will be recorded by collecting data and behavior sequences. Then, a unique index number is generated. This number is usually generated based on the specific information of the current session, such as based on the session ID, timestamp, and related parameter combinations. Next, the identity information of the session in the cloud platform will be analyzed to ensure that the access rights and identity authentication of the session comply with regulations. The identity information is combined with the session data to generate a unique session identifier. Finally, based on the collected session information, the cloud call snapshot data volume is calculated and generated. The data volume includes the interaction information, input and output parameters, behavior sequences, etc. of the session on the cloud platform, and the corresponding snapshot data is generated. The snapshot data will be used for subsequent queries and analysis to help administrators monitor and manage the call status of the cloud platform.

[0171] It should be understood that the term "and / or" as used herein simply describes a relationship between associated objects, indicating that three possible relationships exist. For example, "A and / or B" can represent: A alone, A and B together, or B alone. A and B can be singular or plural. Furthermore, the character " / " as used herein generally indicates an "or" relationship between the associated objects, but it may also indicate an "and / or" relationship. For specific understanding, please refer to the context.

[0172] In this disclosure, "at least one" means one or more, and "plurality" means two or more. "At least one of the following" or similar expressions refers to any combination of these items, including any combination of single or plural items. For example, "at least one of a, b, or c" can mean: a, b, c, ab, ac, bc, or abc, where a, b, and c can be single or plural.

[0173] It should be understood that in various embodiments of the present invention, the size of the serial numbers of the above-mentioned processes does not mean the order of execution. The execution order of each process should be determined by its function and internal logic, and should not constitute any limitation on the implementation process of the embodiments of the present invention.

[0174] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the units and algorithm steps of each example described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in electronic hardware, or a combination of computer software and electronic hardware. Whether these functions are performed in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution. Professionals and technicians can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementation should not be considered beyond the scope of the present invention.

[0175] Those skilled in the art will clearly understand that, for the convenience and brevity of description, the specific working processes of the above-described equipment, devices and units can refer to the corresponding processes in the aforementioned method embodiments and will not be repeated here.

[0176] In the several embodiments provided by the present invention, it should be understood that the disclosed devices, apparatuses and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the device embodiments described above are merely illustrative. For example, the division of the units is merely a logical function division. In actual implementation, there may be other division methods, such as multiple units or components can be combined or integrated into another device, or some features can be ignored or not executed. Another point is that the mutual coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed can be through some interface, indirect coupling or communication connection of the device or unit, which can be electrical, mechanical or other forms.

[0177] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate, and the components shown as units may or may not be physical units, that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of these units may be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs.

[0178] In addition, each functional unit in each embodiment of the present invention may be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit may exist physically separately, or two or more units may be integrated into one unit.

[0179] If the functions are implemented as software functional units and sold or used as independent products, they can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of the present invention, or the portion that contributes to the prior art, or the portion of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions for enabling a computer device (which can be a personal computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in various embodiments of the present invention. The aforementioned storage media include various media that can store program code, such as USB flash drives, mobile hard drives, read-only memories (ROM), random access memories (RAM), magnetic disks, or optical disks.

[0180] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of the present invention, but the scope of protection of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any modifications or substitutions that can be easily conceived by a person skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed in the present invention should be included in the scope of protection of the present invention. Therefore, the scope of protection of the present invention should be based on the scope of protection of the claims.

Claims

1. A standard digital and automated application verification system based on markup language, characterized in that: The system comprises: The label boundary comparison module reads the parameter content in the input type structure segment based on the label parameters bound to the standard function body structure, compares the boundary intersection and coverage relationship between the parameters, screens out non-overlapping or conflicting boundaries, determines logical contradictions, and obtains parameter overlap contradiction characteristics; The parameter overlapping contradiction features include interval conflict labels, contradiction type labels, and conflict distribution indexes; The weight boundary adjustment module compares the boundary segments of the priority label and other labels based on the parameter overlapping and contradictory characteristics and the weight order of the function body description fields, analyzes the segment overlap status, adjusts the coverage of the associated segments, optimizes the input structure, and obtains the input segment coordination structure; The input section coordination structure includes section adjustment sequence, coordination priority, and optimization mapping relationship; The dependency verification module determines the dependency attributes of each function input segment based on the input segment coordination structure, parses the dependency relationship, compares the statement chain order and nesting, identifies dependency breaks or inconsistencies, and obtains dependency link offset features; The dependent link deviation characteristics include a broken node identifier, a quantitative result of the deviation degree, and an abnormal link number; The permission mapping comparison module compares the structure combination with complete markings based on the dependency link offset characteristics, analyzes the user parameter type identifier, determines the permission relationship between the calling environment and the output type check segment, optimizes the access control field and mapping path, and forms a permission structure mapping degree; The authority structure mapping includes authority level mapping, user role identification, and verification result index; The cloud session recording module analyzes the filtered function call structure based on the permission structure mapping, determines the cloud platform deployment status, uploads the input and output processes according to the API interface configuration, determines the communication status between the calling host and the cloud service, creates an index number, and obtains the cloud call snapshot data volume; The cloud call snapshot data volume includes a session identification code, a cloud communication flag, and a behavior tracking sequence.

2. The standard digitalization and automated application verification system based on markup language according to claim 1, characterized in that: The label boundary comparison module includes: The label parameter check submodule analyzes the label parameters in the input type structure segment based on the label parameters bound to the standard function body structure. By comparing the boundary start and end points of each parameter, it performs standardized and unified processing, adjusts the boundary expression, and obtains a set of standard boundary intervals. The boundary intersection judgment submodule analyzes the overlap and intersection relationship between the start and end points of the standard boundary interval set, determines whether there is complete overlap, partial overlap or no intersection, identifies potential conflicts by comparing the interval endpoint relationship, and generates an overlap relationship recognition result; The logical contradiction determination submodule determines whether there is a logical contradiction between the parameters based on the overlapping relationship identification results. For non-overlapping and related parameter combinations, the context inconsistency problem is identified by analyzing the function body call sequence and dependency relationship, and the parameter overlapping contradiction characteristics are obtained.

3. The standard digitalization and automated application verification system based on markup language according to claim 1, characterized in that: The weight boundary adjustment module includes: The overlap detection submodule analyzes the boundary segments between the priority tag and other tags based on the overlapping and conflicting characteristics of the parameters, compares the start and end points of each tag, determines their overlapping or intersecting status, identifies the existing overlapping areas, filters the conflicting areas, and obtains the overlapping area identification results; The boundary adjustment submodule readjusts the overlapping area based on the overlapping area identification result, prioritizes the weight-critical labels, and adjusts the overlapping parts by moving, expanding or shrinking the boundary segments to obtain an optimized boundary configuration; The structure coordination submodule analyzes and optimizes the coordination of input parameters according to the optimized boundary configuration, adjusts the coverage of the associated segments according to the boundary processing rules in the function execution body, and obtains the input segment coordination structure.

4. The standard digitalization and automated application verification system based on markup language according to claim 1, characterized in that: The dependency verification module includes: The dependency attribute identification submodule analyzes the dependency attributes in each quantitative function input type structure segment based on the input segment coordination structure, parses the dependency relationships in the function description one by one, compares whether each parameter depends on other parameter settings, and obtains a dependency attribute mapping set; The dependency chain analysis submodule determines the statement chain sequence and nesting relationship in the function structure based on the dependency attribute mapping set, compares the position of each dependency attribute in the execution sequence, analyzes the existing sequence breaks or logical inconsistencies, and identifies incoherent parts in the dependency expression to obtain the dependency chain sequence check result; The link offset detection submodule checks the broken or offset parts in the link according to the dependency chain sequence inspection results, locates the node offset information in the dependency chain, and analyzes its impact on the function execution logic to obtain the dependency link offset characteristics.

5. The standard digitalization and automated application verification system based on markup language according to claim 4, characterized in that: The node offset information in the positioning dependency chain is calculated using the formula: ； Analyze its impact on the function execution logic and obtain the dependent link offset characteristics ,in, Represents the first The offset position of the node, Represents the offset position of the previous node, Representative Node The weight factor, Represents the first The node's dependency value, Represents the value of the previous dependent node, Represents the total number of nodes, Represents the total number of dependent nodes.

6. The standard digitalization and automated application verification system based on markup language according to claim 1, characterized in that: The permission mapping comparison module includes: The permission relationship comparison submodule compares the user parameter type identifier in the function body based on the dependency link offset feature, determines the permission relationship between the calling environment and the output type check segment, checks the context information of the permission identifier, identifies potential inconsistencies, and generates a permission relationship inconsistency feature; The parameter mapping optimization submodule adjusts the matching degree between the access control field and the parameter mapping path according to the inconsistent permission relationship characteristics, optimizes the correlation between the fields, and generates an optimized mapping path; The permission mapping confirmation submodule identifies the correct calling combination of permission mapping based on the optimized mapping path, judges the matching between the permission identifier and the associated parameters, determines the mapping correctness between the permission and the parameters, and forms the permission structure mapping degree.

7. The standard digitalization and automated application verification system based on markup language according to claim 6, characterized in that: The matching between the authority identifier and the associated parameters is determined by the formula: ； Calculate the mapping degree of the permission structure ,in, Representative The weight value of the permission identifier, Representative The value of the associated parameter, Representative The coverage of parameter mapping paths, Representative The permission weight of each parameter, represents the weight adjustment factor, Indicates the total number of permission identifiers and parameters involved in mapping calculation.

8. The standard digitalization and automated application verification system based on markup language according to claim 1, characterized in that: The cloud session recording module includes: The session structure identification submodule analyzes and filters the function body call structure based on the permission structure mapping degree, determines whether the structure has been deployed on the cloud platform, checks whether the input and output processes comply with the standard API interface configuration, and obtains the cloud deployment matching result by comparing the function body with the deployed structure; The communication verification submodule determines whether the communication between the calling source host and the cloud service is established based on the cloud deployment matching result, checks the reliability of the communication path, determines the stability of the communication signal, and obtains the communication establishment status verification; The index generation submodule verifies the communication establishment status, collects parameter mapping and behavior sequence, creates a unique index number, analyzes the identity information of the session in the cloud platform, and generates cloud call snapshot data volume through the collected session information.

Images