Automated Extension Management System for Software Product Boilerplate Code

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for managing software product extensions are manual and prone to human error, leading to quality issues, schedule delays, and potential brand impact due to incorrect implementation, with a lack of automated tools for reviewing and validating extensions.

Innovation Solution

A method and system that determine a set of existing and potential extensions, receive user selections, compare them with existing extensions, and generate boilerplate code assemblies based on definition language templates and business logic, embedding auditability code for verification and deployment.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If manual methods are used for managing software product extensions, then flexibility and customization are improved, but human error and quality issues increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecustomization flexibilityVSAvoidimplementation quality
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system enables self-service through automated extension management where the software product itself performs validation, comparison, and quality assurance of extensions without requiring manual review. The product automatically detects extension conflicts, validates compatibility, and manages deployment, eliminating human error while preserving customization flexibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements continuous feedback mechanisms by automatically comparing extensions against defined criteria, validating extension quality, and providing real-time information about extension status and compatibility. This feedback loop ensures high reliability by detecting and preventing errors before they impact production environments.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If manual tracking and review of extensions is performed, then extension quality can be verified, but time consumption and productivity decrease

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveextension quality verificationVSAvoidextension management speed
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system replaces manual mechanical processes of tracking and reviewing extensions with automated computational mechanisms. The software automatically tracks extension status, validates quality criteria, and manages deployment workflows, achieving both high reliability and productivity by eliminating time-consuming manual operations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary validation and comparison of extensions before deployment, automatically checking extensions against quality criteria and compatibility requirements in advance. This preliminary action ensures quality verification is completed efficiently without impacting subsequent deployment speed.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Reliability

If extensive testing is performed to validate extension scenarios, then reliability of extension implementation is improved, but time delays and productivity issues occur

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveextension implementation reliabilityVSAvoidextension validation time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies partial testing by focusing validation efforts on critical extension scenarios and compatibility checks that have the most significant impact on reliability. Rather than performing exhaustive testing on all possible scenarios, the system strategically validates key aspects, achieving high reliability with reduced time investment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary compatibility checks and validation against defined criteria before full deployment, identifying potential issues early in the process. This preliminary action reduces the need for extensive post-deployment testing and validation, thereby maintaining reliability while reducing overall time loss.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Adaptability or versatility

If fragmented manual approaches are used for extension development, then customization capability is maintained, but error probability and complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveextension customization capabilityVSAvoidextension management complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements a universal extension management framework that handles multiple extension types, validation criteria, and deployment scenarios through a single integrated platform. This universal approach maintains customization capability while reducing complexity by providing consistent processes and tools for all extension management activities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The system segments extension management into distinct modular components including extension definition, validation, comparison, and deployment stages. Each component handles specific tasks independently, making the overall system more manageable and less complex while preserving full customization capability through configurable parameters at each stage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP4439274A1Method and system for managing product extensions
Publication Date: 2024.10.02 INFOSYS LTD
  • EP4439274A1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP4439274A1 patent drawingFigure 3
  • EP4439274A1 patent drawingFigure 4~5

AI summary

This disclosure relates to a method and a system for managing extensions of a product. The method includes determining a set of extensions associated with the product. The set of extensions includes a set of existing extensions and a set of potential extensions. The method further includes receiving a user selection corresponding to an extension from the set of extensions. The method further includes comparing the extension with the set of existing extensions. The method further includes generating a boilerplate code assembly corresponding to the extension in response to comparing. The boilerplate code assembly is generated based on a definition language template, and a business logic.