Dynamic Diagnostic Tool With Separate Definitions File

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Software applications often fail to operate properly due to changes in hardware or software environments, leading to incompatibilities that are not detected until after deployment, causing operational issues that are difficult to diagnose and repair.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method using a diagnostic tool and a diagnostic definitions file (DDF) that performs specified tests to determine compatibility and takes corrective actions, with the ability to update the DDF dynamically to address new or unknown dependencies, allowing for automatic detection and resolution of issues without requiring updates to the diagnostic tool itself.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If the diagnostic tool is updated to include new tests or dependencies, then the diagnostic capability is improved, but the complexity of device updates and maintenance increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvediagnostic capabilityVSAvoidupdate complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent divides the diagnostic system into two independent parts: the diagnostic tool (executable code) and the diagnostic definitions file (data/configuration). This segmentation allows the definitions file to be updated separately without requiring updates to the diagnostic tool itself, thus improving adaptability while avoiding the complexity of updating the entire diagnostic system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary component - the diagnostic definitions file - that acts as a bridge between the diagnostic tool and the system dependencies. This intermediary contains all test definitions, dependency information, and expected values, allowing the diagnostic tool to function with enhanced capabilities without requiring modification, thereby resolving the contradiction between improved diagnostic capability and reduced update complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Measurement precision

If comprehensive diagnostic tests are performed to detect all compatibility issues, then the diagnostic precision is improved, but the time required for diagnosis increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvediagnostic precisionVSAvoiddiagnosis time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements preliminary action by checking for the presence of a diagnostic definitions file before executing comprehensive diagnostic tests. The definitions file is prepared in advance and contains all necessary test configurations, allowing the diagnostic tool to quickly determine whether full diagnostics are needed or if issues can be identified through the definitions file alone, thus maintaining high diagnostic precision while reducing unnecessary diagnosis time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS7577872B2Dynamic system diagnosis
Publication Date: 2009.08.18 HOME BOX OFFICE INC
  • US7577872B2 patent drawing
  • US7577872B2 patent drawing
  • US7577872B2 patent drawing

AI summary

In one embodiment, the invention is a computer-implemented method that (i) launches a diagnostic tool designed for use with a primary software application, (ii) determines whether a diagnostic definitions file (DDF) needs to be updated, (iii) updates the DDF, if needed, (iv) performs one or more of the diagnostic tests specified in the DDF, (v) determines whether the result produced by each performed diagnostic test is equivalent to the expected result for the performed diagnostic test, and (vi) performs the failure action specified for each performed diagnostic test whose result is not equivalent to the expected result for the performed diagnostic test. The DDF has information specifying: (i) the one or more diagnostic tests, (ii) an expected result for each diagnostic test, and (iii) a failure action to be performed for each diagnostic test, if the result produced by the diagnostic test is not equivalent to the expected result.