Test result visualization file generation device, test result visualization file generation method, and test result visualization file generation program

Abstract

To provide a device etc. for generating a file which visualizes a result of a test in which a developed application is automatically run on a screen, and facilitates specifying a position where an issue has occurred.SOLUTION: According to an embodiment, (1) a comparison result showing the presence of difference or the impossibility of comparison and a file name of a test image for which the presence of difference or the impossibility of comparison is determined are embedded in an HTML file on the basis of comparison result data, (2) the test image for which the presence of difference or the impossibility of comparison is determined is embedded in the HTML file, (3) a screen operation instruction including an operation instruction instructing a device to capture the test image for which the presence of difference or the impossibility of comparison is determined is specified from a screen operation instruction table and an execution history resulting from executing an operation in accordance with the specified screen operation instruction is embedded in the HTML file, and (4) a link for confirming detailed setting information about the application being a test object is embedded in the HTML file on the basis of the specified screen operation instruction.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 9

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a test result visualization file generation device, a test result visualization file generation method, and a test result visualization file generation program. [Background technology]

[0002] Patent Document 1 discloses a technique for improving the efficiency of log verification in a system operation test (see paragraph 0011 of Patent Document 1). [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] JP 2016-71400 A Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] When an application is developed, it is necessary to test whether the application operates normally on the screen. However, in the past, including the technology described in Patent Document 1, the work of checking the results of this operation test has not been efficient.

[0005] In other words, in the past, it was not possible to check the results of the operation test, the screen showing the results of the operation test, the execution history when the operation test was performed, and detailed setting information for the application that was the subject of the operation test in a list. Therefore, when a problem occurred during the operation test, the person in charge had to manually search for the execution history and the detailed setting information, which required a great deal of time and effort.

[0006] The present invention has been made in consideration of the above-mentioned problems, and aims to provide a test result visualization file generation device, a test result visualization file generation method, and a test result visualization file generation program that can visualize the results of a test that automatically executes a developed application on a screen and generate a visualization file that makes it easy to identify the location where a problem has occurred. [Means for solving the problem]

[0007] In order to solve the above-mentioned problems and achieve the object, a test result visualization file generation device according to the present invention is a test result visualization file generation device that includes a control unit and is capable of generating a visualization file that visualizes the results of a test that automatically executes a developed application on a screen and also makes it easy to identify where a problem has occurred, wherein the control unit is configured to embed a comparison result that shows a difference or is incomparable and the file name of the test image that is determined to be different or incomparable in the visualization file based on comparison result data that includes a comparison result that shows a comparison result that shows a difference or is incomparable and the file name of the test image that is determined to be different or incomparable, when a test image that is an image of the screen that results from the test is compared with a reference image that is a reference image that is a comparison target, and a determination is made as to whether the comparison result is no difference, there is a difference, or it is incomparable, linked to the file name of the test image. and a first link embedding means for embedding, in the visualization file, a link for checking detailed setting information for the application that was the subject of the test, based on the screen operation command specified by the execution history embedding means.

[0008] Furthermore, in the test result visualization file generation device according to the present invention, the execution history embedding means embeds the contents of the execution history data into the visualization file in a manner that makes it possible to identify an execution history corresponding to an operation command that commands taking a screenshot of the test image that has been determined to be different or incomparable.

[0009] Furthermore, in the test result visualization file generation device according to the present invention, the image embedding means embeds the test image that has been determined to have a difference, the reference image that the test image was compared with, and an image that highlights the difference between the two images into the visualization file.

[0010] In addition, in the test result visualization file generation device according to the present invention, the control unit further comprises: processing error information embedding means for, when an execution history indicating a processing error exists in execution history data, which is data including an execution history when operations are executed in accordance with the screen operation commands in the screen operation command table, embedding, into the visualization file, information for identifying the fact that a processing error has occurred, information for identifying a screen operation command including an operation command that commanded an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating the processing error, and the execution history when operations are executed in accordance with the screen operation command including an operation command that commanded an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating the processing error; processing error cause embedding means for embedding, into the visualization file, the operation command that commanded the operation corresponding to the execution history indicating the processing error as a cause of the processing error; and second link embedding means for embedding, in the visualization file, a link for checking detailed setting information for the application that was the target of the test, based on the screen operation command including an operation command that commanded an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating the processing error.

[0011] Furthermore, in the test result visualization file generation device according to the present invention, the processing error information embedding means embeds, into the visualization file, an execution history when an operation is performed in accordance with a screen operation command including an operation command that commands an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred, in a manner that enables identification of the execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred.

[0012] In addition, in the test result visualization file generation device according to the present invention, the visualization file is a text format file.

[0013] In addition, in the test result visualization file generation device according to the present invention, the text format file is an HTML format file.

[0014] Furthermore, in a test result visualization file generation method according to the present invention, the method is executed by an information processing device having a control unit, and is capable of generating a visualization file that visualizes the results of a test in which a developed application is automatically executed on a screen and that also facilitates identifying the location of a problem. The test result visualization file generation method executed by the control unit compares a test image, which is an image of the screen resulting from the test, with a reference image, which is a reference image to be compared, and determines whether the test image corresponds to no difference, a difference, or incomparable, based on comparison result data that is linked to the filenames of the test images, and embeds the comparison results of "difference" or "incomparability" and the filenames of the test images that are determined to be "difference" or "incomparability" in the visualization file. a step of embedding the test image determined to be different or incomparable in the visualization file; an image embedding step of identifying a screen operation command including an operation command to take a screenshot of the test image determined to be different or incomparable from a screen operation command table including screen operation commands consisting of a block of operation commands which are commands for operations to be automatically executed on the screen during the test, and embedding contents of execution history data, which is data including an execution history when an operation is executed in accordance with the identified screen operation command, in the visualization file; and a first link embedding step of embedding a link for checking detailed setting information for the application that was the subject of the test in the visualization file based on the screen operation command identified in the execution history embedding step.

[0015] Furthermore, the test result visualization file generation program of the present invention is a test result visualization file generation program for being executed by an information processing device having a control unit, which is capable of generating a visualization file that visualizes the results of a test that automatically executes a developed application on a screen and also makes it easy to identify where a problem has occurred, and is executed by the control unit. The test result visualization file generation program is executed by the control unit, and includes comparison results that are the results of comparing a test image, which is an image of the screen resulting from the test, with a reference image, which is a reference image to be compared, and determining whether the result corresponds to no difference, a difference, or incomparable, and includes comparison result data that is linked to the filenames of the test images, and embeds the comparison results of difference or incomparability and the filenames of the test images that are determined to be different or incomparable in the visualization file. The method includes a comparison result embedding step, an image embedding step of embedding the test image determined to be different or incomparable into the visualization file, an execution history embedding step of identifying a screen operation command including an operation command to take a screenshot of the test image determined to be different or incomparable from a screen operation command table including screen operation commands consisting of a block of operation commands which are commands for operations to be automatically executed on the screen during the test, and embedding contents of execution history data, which is data including an execution history when an operation is executed in accordance with the identified screen operation command, into the visualization file, and a first link embedding step of embedding a link for checking detailed setting information for the application that was the subject of the test into the visualization file based on the screen operation command identified in the execution history embedding step. [Effects of the Invention]

[0016] According to the present invention, it is possible to generate a visualization file that visualizes the results of a test that automatically executes a developed application on a screen and also makes it easy to identify the location of a problem. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0017] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of a test result visualization file generation device. [Figure 2] FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an example of an image of the outline of processing in this embodiment. [Figure 3] FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of an HTML file generated in this embodiment. [Figure 4] FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of comparison result.txt (comparison result data). [Figure 5] FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of the execution setting file. [Figure 6] FIG. 6 is a diagram showing an example of a folder structure of evidence. [Figure 7] FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an example of a flowchart of processing when an error occurs in the image comparison (when comparison is impossible) or when there is a difference in the image comparison (when there is a difference). [Figure 8] FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a flowchart of processing when an error occurs in the execution log of the screen operation program (when a processing error occurs). [Figure 9] FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example of an HTML file that is generated when there is a difference in the image comparison (when there is a difference). [Figure 10] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of an HTML file that is generated when an error occurs in the image comparison (when comparison is not possible). [Figure 11] FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of an HTML file that is generated when an error occurs in the execution log of the screen operation program (when a processing error occurs). [Figure 12] FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an example of embedding a title when an error occurs in image comparison. [Figure 13] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of embedding an image when an error occurs in the image comparison. [Figure 14]FIG. 14 is a diagram showing an example of embedding log information and highlighting target processing when an error occurs in image comparison. [Figure 15] FIG. 15 is a diagram showing an example of embedding link information when an error occurs in image comparison. [Figure 16] FIG. 16 is a diagram showing an example of a screen that is displayed when the character strings "UI definition information" and "execution environment" in the HTML file are clicked. [Figure 17] FIG. 17 is a diagram showing an example of comparison result data used for embedding a title when there is a difference in the image comparison. [Figure 18] FIG. 18 is a diagram showing an example of embedding an image when there is a difference in the image comparison. [Figure 19] FIG. 19 is a diagram showing an example of embedding a title when a processing error occurs. [Figure 20] FIG. 20 is a diagram showing an example of embedding detailed information (operation command) when a processing error occurs. [Figure 21] FIG. 21 is a diagram showing an example of embedding link information when a processing error occurs. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0018] Hereinafter, embodiments of a test result visualization file generation device, a test result visualization file generation method, and a test result visualization file generation program according to the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. Note that the present invention is not limited to these embodiments.

[0019] [1. Overview, etc.] In this section, the outline, background, and effects of this embodiment will be described.

[0020] [1-1. Overview of this embodiment] This embodiment aims to improve the efficiency of checking the results of automated testing of web applications. In recent years, the speed of evolution of operating systems, browsers, etc. has accelerated, and in order to respond to changes in the external environment, there is a demand for more efficient development and testing of business applications.

[0021] For this reason, it has become essential to automate testing of developed web applications using web browsers.

[0022] Therefore, in this embodiment, by comparing test evidence in HTML format, it is possible to visualize the difference between a normal case and a case where a problem occurs in the test, as shown in Figure 2. This improves the reliability of the test evidence and enables early identification of the problem location.

[0023] [1-2. Background of this embodiment] Previously, the person in charge had to visually compare the output images (evidence) of screenshots to find problematic execution results. This resulted in a heavy workload for the person in charge. Another problem was that simply comparing the output images of screenshots did not allow for a clear understanding of the execution conditions of the test cases and automatic execution definitions, which meant that it took a long time to identify the problem areas.

[0024] [1-3. Effects of this embodiment] Therefore, in this embodiment, for example, the following 1 to 6 are made possible.

[0025] 1. By saving screenshots of reference images and test images according to the test case in a specified hierarchy and format, it is now possible to manage evidence while maintaining the correspondence.

[0026] 2. It is now possible to generate comparison HTML that allows you to easily check the correspondence between the reference image and test image of the evidence after the test is executed. This makes it possible to grasp the images by test case or progress at a glance.

[0027] 3. It is now possible to generate HTML for checking differences by extracting only the differences between the reference image and test image of the evidence, and to display the summaries of (A) and (B) below in a list. (A) Test case and automatic execution command information (B) Image showing the difference between the reference image and the test image.

[0028] 4. Comparison Difference Summary List HTML now allows you to store historical information from automated test execution, making it possible to instantly understand which test cases and which automated execution processes have differences.

[0029] 5. The HTML summary of comparison differences can now be linked to the UI definitions and execution definitions for automated tests that have differences. This makes it possible to smoothly check test cases based on the information on the differences.

[0030] 6. In short, in this embodiment, in automatic regression testing, evidence management is made possible that maintains the correspondence with files corresponding to test cases, and a file for comparison and reference (e.g., HTML) can be output. This makes it possible to quickly identify problem areas from the results of test evidence.

[0031] The specific configuration and operation will be described below.

[0032] [2. Configuration] An example of the configuration of the test result visualization file generation device 100 according to this embodiment will be described with reference to Fig. 1. Fig. 1 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the test result visualization file generation device 100.

[0033] The test result visualization file generation device 100 is a commercially available desktop personal computer. Note that the test result visualization file generation device 100 is not limited to a stationary information processing device such as a desktop personal computer, but may also be a portable information processing device such as a commercially available notebook personal computer, a PDA (Personal Digital Assistant), a smartphone, or a tablet personal computer.

[0034] The test result visualization file generation device 100 includes a control unit 102, a communication interface unit 104, a storage unit 106, and an input / output interface unit 108. The units included in the test result visualization file generation device 100 are connected to each other so that they can communicate with each other via any communication path.

[0035] The communication interface unit 104 communicably connects the test result visualization file generation device 100 to a network 300 via a communication device such as a router and a wired or wireless communication line such as a dedicated line. The communication interface unit 104 has a function of communicating data with other devices via the communication line. Here, the network 300 has a function of connecting the test result visualization file generation device 100 and the server 200 so that they can communicate with each other, and is, for example, the Internet or a LAN (Local Area Network). Note that data such as various masters described below may be stored in the server 200, for example.

[0036] An input device 112 and an output device 114 are connected to the input / output interface unit 108. The output device 114 may be a monitor (including a home television), a speaker, or a printer. The input device 112 may be a keyboard, a mouse, a microphone, or a monitor that cooperates with a mouse to achieve a pointing device function. In the following, the output device 114 may be referred to as the monitor 114, and the input device 112 may be referred to as the keyboard 112 or the mouse 112.

[0037] Various databases, tables, files, etc. are stored in the storage unit 106. Computer programs that work in conjunction with the OS (Operating System) to issue commands to the CPU (Central Processing Unit) to perform various processes are recorded in the storage unit 106. The storage unit 106 can be, for example, a memory device such as RAM (Random Access Memory) or ROM (Read Only Memory), a fixed disk device such as a hard disk, a flexible disk, an optical disk, etc.

[0038] The storage unit 106 includes, for example, comparison result data 106a, a screen operation command table 106b, execution history data 106c, and an HTML file 106d as a visualization file.

[0039] The test result visualization file generation device 100 according to this embodiment can generate a visualization file that visualizes the results of a test that automatically executes a developed application on a screen and also makes it easy to identify where a problem has occurred. The visualization file is, for example, a text file, and preferably an HTML file (HTML file 106d).

[0040] The comparison result data 106a is data that includes the comparison result, which is the result of comparing a test image, which is an image of the screen resulting from the test, with a reference image, which is a reference image to be compared, and determining whether the result is no difference, a difference, or incomparable, and is linked to the file name of the test image. The comparison result data 106a is, for example, a text file.

[0041] For example, the comparison result data 106a shown in FIG. 4 includes the result "Valid" indicating that the file name of the test image "X-XXXX-003.png" is determined to be no different from the reference image, the result "Difference" indicating that the file name of the test image "X-XXXX-001.png" is determined to be different from the reference image, and the result "Error" indicating that the file name of the test image "X-XXXX-002.png" is determined to be incomparable to the reference image.

[0042] The screen operation command table 106b is a table including screen operation commands consisting of blocks of operation commands that are commands for operations to be automatically executed on the screen during the test. As shown in Fig. 14 etc., the screen operation command table 106b includes, for example, the screen operation commands and definition identification data (definition ID and definition name) for defining and identifying the screen operation commands in association with each other.

[0043] For example, the screen operation command table 106b shown in Fig. 14 includes a screen operation command (definition Id=X002) consisting of a group of three operation commands. The three operation commands are, as shown in Fig. 14, an operation command of type "launch menu" and target "X-XXXX-002", an operation command of type "value set", target "customer CD" and value "1", and an operation command of type "screenshot", file name "X-XXXX-002.png", and confirmation content "Is 1 displayed in customer CD_To?"

[0044] The execution history data 106c is data including an execution history when an operation is performed according to the screen operation command in the screen operation command table 106b. The execution history data 106c is, for example, a text file. The execution history includes, for example, an execution history indicating that the operation was performed normally without any processing error, and an execution history indicating that a processing error occurred.

[0045] For example, in the execution history data 106c shown in FIG. 19, the execution history marked with the symbol “OK” is an execution history indicating that the operation was executed normally without any processing errors, whereas the execution history marked with the symbol “NG” is an execution history indicating that a processing error occurred.

[0046] As described above, the HTML file 106d is a file for visualizing the results of a test that automatically executes the developed application on the screen. The results of the test that automatically executes the application are as follows, in the HTML file 106d of FIGS. 9 to 11: (1) The "Comparison result: File name" embedded in the upper left corner of the screen ("Difference: X-XXXX-001.png" in Figure 9, "Image comparison error: X-XXXX-002.png" in Figure 10, "Runtime error: X004 X-XXXX-004" in Figure 11) (2) The embedded image (test image, reference image, and comparison result image in Figure 9, test image in Figure 10, no image in Figure 11) and Refers to...

[0047] As mentioned above, the HTML file 106d is also a file that facilitates identification of the location of a problem. In the HTML file 106d of FIGS. 9 to 11, the parts that facilitate identification of the location of a problem are the automatic execution definition information (corresponding to the contents of the execution history data 106c) and a link to the definition. By looking at the automatic execution definition information, the person in charge can understand which operation caused the problem. Furthermore, by clicking the character strings "UI definition information" or "execution environment" that serve as links to the definition, the person in charge can check detailed setting information for the application that was the subject of the test.

[0048] The control unit 102 is a CPU or the like that performs overall control of the test result visualization file generation device 100. The control unit 102 has an internal memory for storing control programs such as an OS, programs that define various processing procedures, required data, etc., and executes various information processing based on these stored programs.

[0049] The control unit 102 has, in terms of functional concept, for example: (1) a comparison result embedding unit 102a as comparison result embedding means for embedding, in the visualization file, a comparison result indicating that a test image, which is an image of the screen resulting from the test, is compared with a reference image, which is a reference image to be compared, and determining whether the test image corresponds to no difference, a difference, or incomparability, and the file name of the test image determined to be different or incomparable, based on comparison result data including the comparison result linked to the file name of the test image; (2) an image embedding unit 102b as image embedding means for embedding, in the visualization file, the test image determined to be different or incomparable; and (3) a screen operation command table including screen operation commands consisting of a group of operation commands that are commands for operations automatically executed on the screen during the test, a screen operation command including an operation command to take a screenshot of the test image determined to be different or incomparable, and inserting, into the visualization file, the contents of execution history data, which is data including an execution history when operations are executed in accordance with the identified screen operation command. (4) a first link embedding unit 102d as first link embedding means for embedding a link for checking detailed setting information of the application that was the target of the test into the visualization file based on the screen operation command specified by the execution history embedding means; (5) a processing error information embedding unit 102e as processing error information embedding means for, when an execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred exists in execution history data, which is data including an execution history when an operation is performed in accordance with the screen operation command in the screen operation command table, embedding, in the visualization file, information for identifying the fact that a processing error has occurred, information for identifying a screen operation command including an operation command that instructed an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred, and an execution history when an operation is performed in accordance with a screen operation command including an operation command that instructed an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred, based on the execution history data and the screen operation command table; and (6) an operation command that instructs an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred,(7) a processing error cause embedding unit 102f as processing error cause embedding means for embedding the cause of a processing error in the visualization file, and (8) a second link embedding unit 102g as second link embedding means for embedding a link for checking detailed setting information for the application that was the target of the test in the visualization file based on a screen operation command including an operation command that commands an operation corresponding to an execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred. The content of the processing executed by each unit will be explained in [4. Specific example of processing] below.

[0050] [3. Processing Overview] In this section, an overview of the processing in this embodiment and the terms used in this embodiment will be explained.

[0051] [3-1. Overview of processing in this embodiment] In this embodiment, an HTML file (HTML file 106d) containing information on the comparison difference list can be generated, as shown in Fig. 3. In Fig. 3, the "difference image name" enclosed in a dotted line frame indicates the definition in which the difference occurred.

[0052] In addition, in Figure 3, clicking on the "UI definition information" string enclosed in a dotted line frame will jump to the definition of the low-code development platform for the test case number in the difference image name. In addition, in Figure 3, clicking on the "Execution environment" string enclosed in a dotted line frame will jump to the definition of the execution environment for the test case number in the difference image name.

[0053] Here, in this embodiment, as a prerequisite for generating an HTML format file (HTML file 106d), a text file (comparison result data 106a) shown in FIG. 4 is output as a comparison result when image comparison is performed.

[0054] 4, "X-XXXX-001.png," "X-XXXX-002.png," and "X-XXXX-003.png" indicate the file names of the images (test images) used for comparison. Also, in comparison result data 106a in Fig. 4, the character string "Error" means that no comparison image was found (comparison was not possible) in the comparison image presence / absence determination, the character string "Difference" means that a difference was found in the image comparison, and the character string "Valid" means that no difference was found in the image comparison.

[0055] In this manner, in this embodiment, (1) differences between the test image and the reference image, (2) UI definition information and execution environment for the test image, and (3) execution history (automatic execution definition information) for analyzing the cause of the differences can be checked in a list from an HTML file. This eliminates the need for a person in charge to manually search for information (UI definition information, execution environment, etc.) for test images in which differences are found, as was previously done.

[0056] [3-2. Terms used in this embodiment] In this embodiment, when a scenario test is executed, test evidence of images and evidence of output data such as CSV data are placed in the location set in the execution setting file shown in Fig. 5. The folder structure of the evidence is, for example, as shown in Fig. 6.

[0057] The definitions of terms used in this embodiment are as follows. · Execution log··· A text file that outputs the history of scenario test execution operations. Image Evidence: Test images for comparison taken during the scenario test. Output data: Data that is not in image format and was output during the execution of the scenario test. Data that is not in image format is, for example, data in CSV format. · Baseline Image Evidence··· Baseline images for comparison, captured during the previous scenario test run. Reference output data: Data that is not in image format and was output the last time a scenario test was run. Non-image data is, for example, data in CSV format. Comparison result image: An image showing the results of comparing the test image and the reference image. If there are any differences between the two, the differences will be highlighted in red, for example.

[0058] [4. Specific examples of processing] This section describes specific examples of processing according to this embodiment. In the following [4-1], we will explain how to generate an HTML format file when an error occurs in image comparison (when comparison is not possible). In the following [4-2], we will explain how to generate an HTML format file when there is a difference in image comparison (when there is a difference). In the following [4-3], we will explain how to generate an HTML format file when there is an error in the execution log of the screen operation program (when there is a processing error).

[0059] Before going into the detailed process, we will briefly explain the outline of HTML file generation. In this embodiment, unexpected results (image differences, runtime errors, etc.) are compiled and output as a list in an HTML file.

[0060] The generated HTML file contains the development screen (UI definition information) for the low-code development platform and a link to the execution environment of the low-code development platform, allowing the operator to directly check the definition content and operation from the link.In the generated HTML file, information extracted as differences is visualized by being highlighted.

[0061] Figure 9 shows an example of an HTML file that is generated when there are differences in the image comparison (when there are differences), Figure 10 shows an example of an HTML file that is generated when there is an error in the image comparison (when comparison is not possible), and Figure 11 shows an example of an HTML file that is generated when there is an error in the execution log of the screen operation program (when there is a processing error).

[0062] In this section [4. Specific examples of processing], the contents of the reference image and test image are as follows: That is, the reference image (normal image) is the image of the screen when "1" is set in the From field of a supplier CD and "1" is automatically set in the To field of the supplier CD as well. In contrast, the test image (abnormal image) is the image of the screen when "1" is set in the From field of a supplier CD but a value is not automatically set in the To field of the supplier CD, or when "1" is set in the From field of a supplier CD and a value is automatically set in the To field of the supplier CD but that value is "2."

[0063] [4-1. Creating an HTML file when an error occurs during image comparison (when comparison is not possible)] This section explains how to generate an HTML file when an error occurs during image comparison (when comparison is not possible). Errors during image comparison include, for example, when the image at the time of test execution exists but the reference image to compare with does not exist, or when the image sizes of the reference image and test image are different and comparison is not possible.

[0064] The process will be described in detail below with reference to the flowchart in FIG.

[0065] (1) Embedding titles First, when the process starts (START in FIG. 7), the test image is compared with the reference image, and comparison result data 106a in text format is output (step SA1 in FIG. 7).

[0066] Next, based on the comparison result data 106a, the file names of the images that cannot be compared or that have differences, and the status of the comparison result (Error, Difference, or Valid) are obtained (step SA2 in FIG. 7).

[0067] Next, it is determined whether image comparison was successful (step SA3 in FIG. 7). If image comparison was not successful (step SA3 in FIG. 7: Yes), the process proceeds to step SA4, which will be described in the next paragraph. On the other hand, if image comparison was successful (step SA3 in FIG. 7: No), the process proceeds to step SA9, which will be described in the next section [4-2].

[0068] If the image comparison is not possible (step SA3 in FIG. 7: Yes), the comparison result embedding unit 102a embeds the comparison result indicating that comparison is not possible (the message "Image comparison error" in HTML file 106d in FIG. 12) and the file name of the test image that was determined to be incomparable (the file name "X-XXXX-002.png" in HTML file 106d in FIG. 12) into HTML file 106d based on the comparison result data 106a, as shown in FIG. 12.

[0069] In other words, the comparison result embedding unit 102a sets the file name of the image that resulted in a comparison error in the title of the HTML based on the comparison result text file of the image (step SA4 in FIG. 7).

[0070] (2) Embedding images Next, as shown in FIG. 13, image embedding unit 102b embeds the test image that has been determined to be incomparable into HTML file 106d.

[0071] In other words, the image embedding unit 102b acquires the image that resulted in a comparison error based on the image comparison result text file, and embeds the image into HTML (step SA5 in FIG. 7).

[0072] (3) Embedding log information and highlighting target processes Next, the execution history embedding unit 102c identifies a screen operation command (screen operation command with definition Id=X002) from the screen operation command table 106b of Figure 14 that includes an operation command (type "screenshot", file name "X-XXXX-002.png", and confirmation content "Is 1 displayed for customer CD_To?") that commands taking a screenshot of the test image that was determined to be incomparable.

[0073] Then, the execution history embedding unit 102c embeds the contents of the execution history data 106c (not shown as data) when an operation is performed in accordance with the identified screen operation command into the HTML file 106d, as shown in Fig. 14. The information indicated as "automatic execution definition information" in the HTML file 106d in Fig. 14 is the execution history data 106c after being embedded in the HTML file 106d.

[0074] In addition, as shown in Figure 14, the execution history embedding unit 102c may also embed the confirmation content ``Is 1 displayed for customer CD_To?'' from the operation command (operation command with type ``screenshot,'' file name ``X-XXXX-002.png,'' and confirmation content ``Is 1 displayed for customer CD_To?'') in the HTML file 106d along with the execution history data 106c.

[0075] In this way, the execution history embedding unit 102c refers to the screen operation command table 106b in the business application DB based on the image comparison result text file, and embeds the confirmation content and log information of the automatic execution definition into HTML (step SA6 in FIG. 7).

[0076] Here, the execution history embedding unit 102c embeds the contents of the execution history data 106c into the HTML file 106d in a manner that makes it possible to identify the execution history "OK Take screenshot:X-XXXX-002.png" corresponding to the operation command to take a screenshot of the test image that was determined to be incomparable (shown in bold in FIG. 14), as shown in FIG. 14.

[0077] In other words, the execution history embedding unit 102c emphasizes by highlighting the operation command for taking a screenshot of the image in error (step SA7 in FIG. 7).

[0078] (4) Embedding link information Finally, as shown in Figure 15, the first link embedding unit 102d embeds links (the strings "UI definition information" and "execution environment") for checking detailed setting information about the application that was the subject of the test into the HTML file 106d based on the screen operation command (the screen operation command with definition Id = X002) identified by the execution history embedding unit 102c in (3).

[0079] In other words, the first link embedding unit 102d refers to the screen operation command table 106b in the business application DB based on the image comparison result text file, and embeds the UI definition information and link information to the execution environment into the HTML (step SA8 in FIG. 7).

[0080] An example of a screen that is displayed when the character strings "UI definition information" and "execution environment" in the HTML file 106d are clicked is shown in Fig. 16. The operator can manually input information based on the execution history information and check whether degradation has occurred.

[0081] [4-2. Generate HTML file if there are differences in the image comparison (if there are differences)] This section explains how to generate an HTML file when there are differences in the image comparison. When there are differences in the image comparison, this refers to when there are some differences between the test image and the reference image.

[0082] The process will be described in detail below with reference to the flowchart in FIG.

[0083] (1) Embedding titles The process from step SA1 to step SA3 is the same as in [4-1], so a detailed description will be omitted. If the image comparison is successful in step SA3 (step SA3 in FIG. 7: No), the process proceeds to step SA9 and subsequent steps described in this section.

[0084] In step SA4, it is determined whether or not there is a difference in the image comparison (step SA9 in FIG. 7). If there is no difference (step SA9: No in FIG. 7), the processing ends (END in FIG. 7). On the other hand, if there is a difference (step SA9: Yes in FIG. 7), the comparison result embedding unit 102a embeds the comparison result showing a difference (the wording "Difference" in the HTML file 106d in FIG. 18) and the file name of the test image determined to have a difference (the file name "X-XXXX-001.png" in the HTML file 106d in FIG. 18) into the HTML file 106d based on the comparison result data 106a in FIG. 17.

[0085] In other words, the comparison result embedding unit 102a sets the file name of the image that has been found to be different as the title of the HTML based on the image comparison result text file (step SA10 in FIG. 7). In this way, if the images can be compared but there are differences between them, the comparison result embedding unit 102a obtains the file name with "Difference" added from the comparison result text file and sets the title in the HTML.

[0086] (2) Embedding images Next, the image embedding unit 102b embeds the test image that has been determined to have a difference into the HTML file 106d. More specifically, as shown in FIG. 18, the image embedding unit 102b embeds the test image that has been determined to have a difference, the reference image that the test image was compared with, and an image that highlights the difference between the two images (the "comparison result image" in the HTML file 106d in FIG. 18) into the HTML file 106d.

[0087] In other words, the image embedding unit 102b embeds the image with the difference (test image), the reference image, and the comparison result image into HTML based on the image comparison result text file (step SA11 in FIG. 7).

[0088] (3) Embedding log information and highlighting target processes Next, the execution history embedding unit 102c identifies a screen operation command (screen operation command with definition Id=X003) from the screen operation command table 106b that includes an operation command to take a screenshot of the test image that has been determined to be different (an operation command with type "screenshot", file name "X-XXXX-001.png", and confirmation content "Is 1 displayed for business partner CD_To?").

[0089] Then, the execution history embedding unit 102c embeds the contents of the execution history data 106c (not shown as data) when an operation is performed in accordance with the identified screen operation command into the HTML file 106d, as shown in Fig. 18. The information indicated as "automatic execution definition information" in the HTML file 106d in Fig. 18 is the execution history data 106c after being embedded in the HTML file 106d.

[0090] In addition, as shown in Figure 18, the execution history embedding unit 102c may also embed the confirmation content ``Is 1 displayed for customer CD_To?'' from the operation command (operation command with type ``screenshot,'' file name ``X-XXXX-001.png,'' and confirmation content ``Is 1 displayed for customer CD_To?'') in the HTML file 106d along with the execution history data 106c.

[0091] In this way, the execution history embedding unit 102c refers to the screen operation command table 106b in the business application DB based on the image comparison result text file, and embeds the confirmation content and log information of the automatic execution definition into HTML (step SA12 in FIG. 7).

[0092] Here, the execution history embedding unit 102c embeds the contents of the execution history data 106c into the HTML file 106d in a manner that makes it possible to identify (in bold in FIG. 18) the execution history "OK Take screenshot:X-XXXX-001.png" corresponding to the operation command to take a screenshot of the test image that has been determined to be different, as shown in FIG. 18.

[0093] In other words, the execution history embedding unit 102c emphasizes by highlighting the operation command for taking a screenshot of the image that is found to be different (step SA13 in FIG. 7).

[0094] (4) Embedding link information Finally, as shown in Figure 18, the first link embedding unit 102d embeds links (the strings "UI definition information" and "execution environment") for checking detailed setting information about the application that was the subject of the test into the HTML file 106d based on the screen operation command (the screen operation command with definition Id = X003) identified by the execution history embedding unit 102c in (3).

[0095] In other words, the first link embedding unit 102d refers to the screen operation command table 106b in the business application DB based on the image comparison result text file, and embeds the UI definition information and link information to the execution environment into the HTML (step SA14 in FIG. 7).

[0096] An example of a screen that is displayed when the character strings "UI definition information" and "execution environment" in the HTML file 106d are clicked is shown in FIG.

[0097] By the processes described above in [4-1] and [4-2], the generation of the HTML file 106d for a certain test image is completed.

[0098] Next, it is checked whether there are still any incomparable or different images (step SA15 in FIG. 7). If there are no incomparable or different images (step SA15 in FIG. 7: No), the process ends (end in FIG. 7). On the other hand, if there are still any incomparable or different images (step SA15 in FIG. 7: Yes), the process returns to step SA3, and an HTML file 106d is generated for the incomparable or different images. The processes of steps SA3 to SA15 are repeated until there are no more incomparable or different images.

[0099] [4-3. Generating an HTML file when there is an error in the execution log of the screen operation program (when there is a processing error)] This section explains how to generate an HTML file when there is an error in the execution log of the screen operation program (when there is a processing error). Examples of when there is an error in the execution log of the screen operation program include when an error occurs during processing, when data comparison is NG, and when a button cannot be pressed.

[0100] The process will be described in detail below with reference to the flowchart in FIG.

[0101] (1) Embedding titles First, when the process starts (START in FIG. 8), the execution history data 106c (execution log) of the screen operation program is output (step SB1 in FIG. 8).

[0102] Next, information of the execution history data 106c (execution log) is obtained (step SB2 in FIG. 8), and then the definition information in the execution history data 106c (execution log) is read line by line (step SB3 in FIG. 8).

[0103] Next, it is determined whether or not a processing error (NG) exists in the execution history data 106c (execution log) of the screen operation program (step SB4 in FIG. 8). If no processing error (NG) exists (step SB4 in FIG. 8: No), the processing ends (end in FIG. 8). On the other hand, if a processing error (NG) exists (step SB4 in FIG. 8: Yes), the processing proceeds to step SB5, which will be described in the next paragraph.

[0104] As described in the previous paragraph, if there is an execution history in the execution history data 106c (execution log) indicating that a processing error has occurred (step SB4: Yes in Figure 8), the processing error information embedding unit 102e embeds information into the HTML file 106d as described in the next paragraph based on the execution history data 106c (execution log) in Figure 19 and the screen operation command table 106b in Figure 19.

[0105] That is, the processing error information embedding unit 102e, as shown in FIG. Information to identify the fact that a processing error occurred (the "Runtime Error" message in HTML file 106d in Figure 19), Information for identifying a screen operation command (the screen operation command of definition Id=X004 in the screen operation command table 106b of FIG. 19) including an operation command (the operation command of type "check data", file name "X-XXXX-004_grid display.csv", and comparison target "X-XXXX-004_reference data.csv" in the screen operation command table 106b of FIG. 19) that instructed an operation corresponding to an execution history indicating that a processing error occurred (the execution history "NG Is the CSV data the same as the reference data?" in the execution history data 106c of FIG. 19), and Execution history (automatic execution definition information in HTML file 106d of FIG. 19) when an operation is executed in accordance with a screen operation command (screen operation command with definition Id=X004 in screen operation command table 106b of FIG. 19) including an operation command (operation command with type "check data", file name "X-XXXX-004_grid display.csv" and comparison target "X-XXXX-004_reference data.csv" in screen operation command table 106b of FIG. 19) that commands an operation corresponding to an execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred (execution history "NG Is the CSV data the same as the reference data?" in execution history data 106c of FIG. 19), and is embedded in the HTML file 106d.

[0106] In other words, the processing error information embedding unit 102e acquires the corresponding screen operation command from the business application DB based on the definition name that was rejected based on the execution log of the screen operation program, and sets it in the title of the HTML. Also, the processing error information embedding unit 102e acquires the corresponding execution history from the business application DB based on the definition name that was rejected based on the execution log of the screen operation program, and embeds it in the HTML (step SB5 in FIG. 8).

[0107] Here, as shown in FIG. 19, the processing error information embedding unit 102e embeds into the HTML file 106d the execution history (automatic execution definition information in the HTML file 106d in FIG. 19) when an operation is performed in accordance with a screen operation command including an operation command that commands an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred, in a manner that makes it possible to identify the execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred, "NG Is the CSV data the same as the reference data?" (shown in bold in FIG. 19).

[0108] In other words, the processing error information embedding unit 102e emphasizes the execution history that resulted in NG by highlighting it in the execution log (step SB6 in FIG. 8).

[0109] (2) Embedding detailed information (operation instructions) about the process that caused the failure As shown in FIG. 20, the processing error cause embedding unit 102f embeds an operation command (an operation command with the file name "X-XXXX-004_grid display.csv" in the screen operation command table 106b in FIG. 20) that commands an operation corresponding to an execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred (an execution history indicating "NG CSV data is the same as the reference data" in the execution history data 106c in FIG. 20) as the cause of the processing error in the HTML file 106d.

[0110] In other words, the processing error cause embedding unit 102f acquires details of the processing that resulted in NG from the screen operation program log and embeds the details in the HTML (step SB7 in FIG. 8).

[0111] (3) Embedding link information Finally, as shown in FIG. 21, the second link embedding unit 102g embeds a link (a string of "UI definition information" and a string of "execution environment") for checking detailed setting information about the application that was the subject of the test into the HTML file 106d based on a screen operation command (a screen operation command of definition Id=X004) that includes an operation command that commands an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating that a processing error occurred.

[0112] In other words, the second link embedding unit 102g refers to the screen operation command table 106b in the business application DB based on the execution log text file that was rejected, and embeds UI definition information and link information to the execution environment into the HTML (step SB8 in Figure 8).

[0113] An example of a screen that is displayed when the character strings "UI definition information" and "execution environment" in the HTML file 106d are clicked is shown in FIG.

[0114] By the process described in [4-3] above, the generation of the HTML file 106d for the execution history that is NG in the execution history data 106c (execution log) is completed.

[0115] Next, the process returns to step SB3, and the next line is read from the definition information in the execution log. Steps SB3 to SB8 are repeated until there are no more NG execution history lines (until step SB4 proceeds to No).

[0116] [5. Summary of this embodiment] As described above, the test result visualization file generation device 100 according to this embodiment can generate a visualization file (HTML file 106d) that visualizes the results of a test that automatically executes a developed application on a screen and also makes it easy to identify where a problem has occurred.

[0117] This allows the person in charge to check the test results in the HTML file 106d. Also, if a problem occurs during the operation test, the person in charge can check the execution history of the test operations in the HTML file 106d. Furthermore, the person in charge can check detailed setting information for the developed application by clicking on a link in the HTML file 106d. In other words, the person in charge can easily and quickly both check the operation test results and identify the location of the problem by simply referring to the HTML file 106d.

[0118] [6. Contribution to the United Nations-led Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)] This embodiment can contribute to improving business efficiency and promoting appropriate management decisions by companies, thereby contributing to the achievement of SDGs Goals 8 and 9.

[0119] Furthermore, this embodiment can contribute to reducing waste and promoting paperless and electronic systems, thereby contributing to the achievement of SDGs Goals 12, 13, and 15.

[0120] Furthermore, this embodiment can contribute to strengthening control and governance, which can contribute to the achievement of Goal 16 of the SDGs.

[0121] 7. Other Embodiments The present invention may be implemented in various different embodiments other than those described above within the scope of the technical concept set forth in the claims.

[0122] For example, among the processes described in the embodiments, all or part of the processes described as being performed automatically can be performed manually, or all or part of the processes described as being performed manually can be performed automatically using known methods.

[0123] Furthermore, the processing procedures, control procedures, specific names, information including parameters such as registered data and search conditions for each process, screen examples, and database configurations shown in this specification and drawings can be changed as desired unless otherwise specified.

[0124] Furthermore, with regard to the test result visualization file generation device 100, the components shown in the figures are functional concepts, and do not necessarily have to be physically configured as shown in the figures.

[0125] For example, all or any part of the processing functions of the test result visualization file generation device 100, particularly the processing functions performed by the control unit, may be implemented by a CPU and a program interpreted and executed by the CPU, or may be implemented as hardware using wired logic. The program is recorded on a non-transitory, computer-readable recording medium containing programmed instructions for causing the information processing device to execute the processes described in this embodiment, and is mechanically read by the test result visualization file generation device 100 as needed. That is, a computer program for providing instructions to the CPU in cooperation with the OS and performing various processes is recorded in a storage unit such as a ROM or HDD (hard disk drive). This computer program is executed by being loaded into RAM and cooperates with the CPU to form the control unit.

[0126] In addition, this computer program may be stored in an application program server connected to the test result visualization file generation device 100 via any network, and it is also possible to download all or part of it as needed.

[0127] Furthermore, the program for executing the processes described in this embodiment may be stored in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium or configured as a program product. Here, the term "recording medium" includes any "portable physical medium" such as a memory card, a Universal Serial Bus (USB) memory, a Secure Digital (SD) card, a flexible disk, a magneto-optical disk, a ROM, an Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory (EPROM), an Electrically Erasable and Programmable Read Only Memory (EEPROM (registered trademark)), a Compact Disk Read Only Memory (CD-ROM), a Magneto-Optical disk (MO), a Digital Versatile Disk (DVD), and a Blu-ray (registered trademark) disc.

[0128] Furthermore, a "program" is a data processing method written in any language or description method, regardless of the format, such as source code or binary code. Note that a "program" is not necessarily limited to a single structure, but also includes a structure that is distributed as multiple modules or libraries, or a structure that achieves its function by cooperating with a separate program, such as an OS. Note that the specific configuration and reading procedure for reading a recording medium in each device shown in the embodiments, as well as the installation procedure after reading, can use well-known configurations and procedures.

[0129] The various databases stored in the memory unit are storage means such as memory devices such as RAM and ROM, fixed disk devices such as hard disks, flexible disks, and optical disks, and store various programs, tables, databases, and web page files used for various processes and providing websites.

[0130] The test result visualization file generation device 100 may be configured as an information processing device such as a known personal computer or workstation, or may be configured as an information processing device connected to any peripheral device. The test result visualization file generation device 100 may also be realized by installing software (including programs, data, etc.) that causes the device to perform the processes described in this embodiment.

[0131] Furthermore, the specific form of distribution and integration of the devices is not limited to that shown in the drawings, and all or part of them can be configured by functionally or physically distributing and integrating them in any unit depending on various additions or functional loads. In other words, the above-described embodiments can be implemented in any combination, or embodiments can be implemented selectively. [Industrial Applicability]

[0132] The present invention is useful, for example, in the field of performing on-screen operation tests for developed applications. [Explanation of symbols]

[0133] 100 Test result visualization file generator 102 Control section 102a Comparison result embedding section 102b Image embedding section 102c Execution history embedding part 102d First link embedded part 102e Processing error information embedding section 102f Processing error cause embedding part 102g Second link embedded part 104 Communication interface unit 106 Storage section 106a Comparison result data 106b Screen operation command table 106c Execution history data 106d HTML file 108 Input / Output Interface Section 112 Input Device 114 Output Device 200 servers 300 Network

Claims

1. A test result visualization file generation device having a control unit that can generate a visualization file that visualizes the results of a test that automatically executes a developed application on a screen and that facilitates identification of a problem location, The control unit a comparison result embedding means for embedding, in the visualization file, the comparison result of whether a test image, which is an image of the screen resulting from the test, corresponds to no difference, a difference, or an incomparability, and the file name of the test image that is determined to be different or incomparable, based on comparison result data that includes the comparison result linked to the file name of the test image, when the test image, which is an image of the screen resulting from the test, is compared with a reference image, which is a reference image to be compared; an image embedding means for embedding the test image determined to be different or incomparable into the visualization file; an execution history embedding means for identifying a screen operation command including an operation command to take a screenshot of the test image determined to be different or incomparable from a screen operation command table including screen operation commands consisting of a block of operation commands that are commands for operations that are automatically executed on the screen during the test, and embedding the contents of execution history data, which is data including an execution history when operations are executed in accordance with the identified screen operation command, in the visualization file; a first link embedding means for embedding a link for checking detailed setting information of the application that was the target of the test into the visualization file based on the screen operation command identified by the execution history embedding means; To have A test result visualization file generation device characterized by the above.

2. The execution history embedding means Embedding the content of the execution history data into the visualization file in a manner that allows identification of an execution history corresponding to an operation command commanding taking a screenshot of the test image that is determined to be different or incomparable; 2. The test result visualization file generating device according to claim 1, wherein:

3. The image embedding means Embedding the test image determined to have a difference, the reference image used to compare the test image, and an image highlighting the difference between the two images into the visualization file; 2. The test result visualization file generating device according to claim 1, wherein:

4. The control unit a processing error information embedding means for, when an execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred exists in execution history data, which is data including an execution history when an operation is performed in accordance with the screen operation command in the screen operation command table, embedding, into the visualization file, information for identifying the fact that a processing error has occurred, information for identifying a screen operation command including an operation command which instructed an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred, and an execution history when an operation is performed in accordance with a screen operation command including an operation command which instructed an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred, based on the execution history data and the screen operation command table; a processing error cause embedding means for embedding, into the visualization file, an operation command that commands an operation corresponding to an execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred, as the cause of the processing error; a second link embedding means for embedding a link in the visualization file for checking detailed setting information about the application that was the target of the test, based on a screen operation command including an operation command for instructing an operation corresponding to an execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred; Further comprising:

2. The test result visualization file generating device according to claim 1, wherein:

5. The processing error information embedding means Embedding, in the visualization file, an execution history when an operation is performed in accordance with a screen operation command including an operation command that commands an operation corresponding to the execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred, in a manner that enables identification of the execution history indicating that a processing error has occurred; 5. The test result visualization file generating device according to claim 4, wherein:

6. The visualization file is a text file; 6. The test result visualization file generating device according to claim 1, wherein:

7. The text file is an HTML file.

7. The test result visualization file generating device according to claim 6, wherein:

8. A test result visualization file generation method executed by an information processing device having a control unit, which is capable of generating a visualization file that visualizes the results of a test in which a developed application is automatically executed on a screen and that facilitates identification of a problem location, Executed by the control unit, a comparison result embedding step of embedding the comparison result of a test image, which is an image of the screen resulting from the test, into the visualization file the file name of the test image that is determined to be different or incomparable, based on comparison result data that includes the comparison result, which is the result of comparing a test image, which is an image of the screen resulting from the test, with a reference image, which is a reference image to be compared, and determining whether the test image corresponds to no difference, a difference, or incomparable, and the file name of the test image that is determined to be different or incomparable; an image embedding step of embedding the test image determined to be different or incomparable into the visualization file; an execution history embedding step of identifying a screen operation command including an operation command to take a screenshot of the test image determined to be different or incomparable from a screen operation command table including screen operation commands consisting of a block of operation commands that are commands for operations that are automatically executed on the screen during the test, and embedding the contents of execution history data, which is data including an execution history when operations are executed in accordance with the identified screen operation command, into the visualization file; a first link embedding step of embedding a link for checking detailed setting information of the application that was the target of the test into the visualized file based on the screen operation command identified in the execution history embedding step; containing, A test result visualization file generation method characterized by the above.

9. A test result visualization file generation program for an information processing device having a control unit, which is capable of generating a visualization file that visualizes the results of a test that automatically executes a developed application on a screen and also facilitates identification of a problem location, To cause the control unit to execute a comparison result embedding step of embedding the comparison result of a test image, which is an image of the screen resulting from the test, into the visualization file the file name of the test image that is determined to be different or incomparable, based on comparison result data that includes the comparison result, which is the result of comparing a test image, which is an image of the screen resulting from the test, with a reference image, which is a reference image to be compared, and determining whether the test image corresponds to no difference, a difference, or incomparable, and the file name of the test image that is determined to be different or incomparable; an image embedding step of embedding the test image determined to be different or incomparable into the visualization file; an execution history embedding step of identifying a screen operation command including an operation command to take a screenshot of the test image determined to be different or incomparable from a screen operation command table including screen operation commands consisting of a block of operation commands that are commands for operations that are automatically executed on the screen during the test, and embedding the contents of execution history data, which is data including an execution history when operations are executed in accordance with the identified screen operation command, into the visualization file; a first link embedding step of embedding a link for checking detailed setting information of the application that was the target of the test into the visualized file based on the screen operation command identified in the execution history embedding step; containing, A test result visualization file generator featuring:

Images