Code Scanning for Preemptive Dependency Issue Detection

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Developers face challenges in identifying and addressing issues that may manifest in their code due to dependencies, especially when upgrading or using different versions, as these issues are often not immediately apparent and can lead to unforeseen malfunctions.

Innovation Solution

A system that scans information from issue tracking systems to identify problematic code characteristics, generates user interfaces to display potential issues, and suggests automated or manual operations to preemptively resolve these issues by analyzing code patterns and dependencies.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If developers manually test code after dependency changes, then they can detect issues, but the process is time-consuming and issues may still be missed

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecode stabilityVSAvoidtesting time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary analysis of dependency changes and automatically identifies potentially affected code regions before manual testing begins. By pre-computing impact analysis based on dependency graphs and code semantics, the system prepares test recommendations in advance, reducing the actual testing time required while maintaining high reliability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements continuous feedback loops where test results automatically update the dependency impact model. When issues are detected during testing, the system learns from these outcomes and refines its predictions for future dependency changes, improving both reliability and reducing testing time over time through adaptive optimization.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If comprehensive testing is performed after every dependency change, then code reliability improves, but productivity decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecode reliabilityVSAvoiddevelopment speed

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of performing comprehensive testing on all code after every dependency change, the system applies partial action by selectively testing only the specific code regions identified as potentially affected. This targeted approach maintains code reliability by focusing testing efforts where issues are most likely to occur, while preserving productivity by avoiding unnecessary testing of unaffected code.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts testing parameters such as test depth, scope, and intensity based on the specific dependency change characteristics. By changing parameters like the affected code region size, dependency criticality level, and historical issue frequency, the system optimizes the balance between reliability and productivity for each specific change scenario.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

3Adaptability or versatility

If developers upgrade dependencies to access new features, then functionality improves, but the risk of introducing bugs increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefeature availabilityVSAvoidcode stability

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies preliminary anti-action by proactively identifying and flagging potential compatibility issues before dependency upgrades are deployed to production. It analyzes the upgraded dependency against the existing codebase, predicts possible conflicts based on historical data and static analysis, and prevents problematic upgrades before they can introduce bugs, thus maintaining reliability while allowing feature access.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary compatibility testing and impact analysis before dependency upgrades are finalized. By pre-evaluating the upgraded dependency's interface changes, behavioral modifications, and potential conflicts with existing code, the system prepares mitigation strategies in advance, enabling safe adoption of new features while minimizing the risk of introducing bugs.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

4Extent of automation

If static analysis tools are used to detect code issues, then automated detection improves, but false positives increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedetection automationVSAvoidissue detection accuracy

Core Design Contradiction:

Extent of automationVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements feedback mechanisms where false positives from static analysis tools are automatically reported and used to refine the analysis models. By continuously learning from false positive patterns, developer corrections, and actual runtime behavior data, the system adjusts its detection thresholds and rules, maintaining high automation while progressively improving detection accuracy and reducing false positives over time.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS12619516B2Automated code scanning for pre-emptive issue detection and resolution

Publication Date: 2026.05.05 MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC

AI summary

An issue source scanning system scans a source of information about an issue to identify characteristics of code which indicate that the issue will manifest in code. A code scanning system scans code to match the identified characteristics against the code to determine whether the source code includes the identified characteristics. The code scanning system automatically generates a suggested operation to perform based upon a match between the identified characteristic and the code.