Defect Positioning System Using Historical Data Analysis
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
In software development and testing, identifying the location of defects in large and complex applications is challenging due to the reliance on user input, which varies in quality and expertise, affecting the accuracy of defect positioning mechanisms.
Innovation Solution
A method and system for historical data-based defect positioning that selects appropriate defect positioning procedures based on input types, such as defect title, description, test case information, or traceability matrix, to accurately identify defect locations using a defect positioning system.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If multiple defect positioning procedures are provided with different input requirements, then the system can handle various input types, but the device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The defect positioning system is segmented into multiple independent procedures (first mode, second mode, third mode, fourth mode), each handling specific input types. This segmentation allows the system to manage complexity by dividing the overall function into smaller, specialized sub-functions that can be selected based on input type.
Solution Approach 2:
The system dynamically selects which defect positioning procedure to execute based on the type of input received. This dynamic selection mechanism allows the system to adapt its behavior according to input requirements without requiring all procedures to be actively executed simultaneously, thereby managing complexity while maintaining versatility.
2Adaptability or versatility
If user input quality varies based on expertise, then the system must handle diverse input qualities, but the measurement precision of defect positioning deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The system introduces an intermediary processing layer that receives diverse user inputs (defect title, description, test case information, traceability matrix) and transforms them into standardized internal representations. This intermediary layer acts as a mediator between variable-quality user inputs and the defect positioning algorithms, ensuring consistent processing regardless of input quality.
Solution Approach 2:
The system changes the parameter representation of inputs based on their type. Different input formats (defect title, description, test case info, traceability matrix) are converted into standardized internal parameters that can be uniformly processed by the defect positioning procedures, thereby maintaining measurement precision despite input quality variations.
3Adaptability or versatility
If multiple defect positioning procedures are implemented, then the system can process different input types, but the productivity of defect positioning decreases
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary action by pre-defining and pre-organizing multiple defect positioning procedures with different input requirements before actual defect positioning is needed. This preliminary preparation allows for rapid selection and execution of the appropriate procedure based on input type, avoiding the need to evaluate multiple procedures during the actual defect positioning task.
Data Source
AI summary
Disclosed herein are a method and a system for software defect positioning. The system collects at least one type of information with respect to the defect and analyzes the collected input to select a suitable mode of defect positioning procedure. The defect positioning procedures used by the system identify defect location/position based on history data. After identifying the location of the defect, the system communicates the identified defect location/position to a user using a suitable output interface.