Machine-Readable Feature Specifications for Automated Test Case Updates

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The process of software development is hindered by the expansion and modification of requirements and test cases, leading to increased storage and computational costs, as well as the need for extensive human effort in validation and maintenance.

Innovation Solution

Parsing human-generated narratives into a machine-readable format to generate and update test cases, linking them to software feature specifications, and automating the process of updating or deprecating test cases as requirements change.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the set of requirements and test cases expands to cover more software features, then the completeness and accuracy of requirement validation is improved, but the storage requirements and computational costs increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverequirement validation accuracyVSAvoidnumber of test cases

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

A single test case can validate multiple requirements by linking the test case to multiple feature specifications. The test case framework is designed to be universally applicable, allowing one test case to serve multiple purposes through configurable links to different specifications, thereby reducing the total number of test cases needed while maintaining comprehensive validation coverage

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

Multiple test cases can be merged into a single test case that validates multiple requirements. The system combines redundant test cases by identifying common validation logic and consolidating them, reducing the overall quantity of test cases while preserving the validation coverage for all requirements

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

2Reliability

If the set of requirements and test cases is continuously updated to reflect software changes, then the accuracy of validation is improved, but the computational cost and time for validation increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvevalidation accuracyVSAvoidvalidation time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by automatically generating test cases from feature specifications before validation is needed. Test cases are pre-generated and linked to specifications, so when validation is required, the system can quickly execute pre-prepared test cases rather than creating new ones, significantly reducing validation time while maintaining accuracy

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback mechanisms where validation results are automatically fed back to update the feature specifications and test case links. This continuous feedback loop ensures that validation accuracy is maintained while the automated feedback process reduces manual intervention time and optimizes future validation operations

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Manufacturing precision

If manual creation and validation of test cases is performed for each requirement, then the quality of test cases is improved, but the human effort and cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvetest case qualityVSAvoidhuman effort

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-service by automatically generating test cases from feature specifications without requiring manual intervention for each test case. The automated generator creates test cases based on the specification structure, and the system automatically links them to relevant requirements, significantly reducing human effort while maintaining test case quality through structured generation rules

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

Manual mechanical processes of creating and validating test cases are replaced with automated computer-based generation and validation systems. The mechanical repetition of manual test case creation is substituted with automated algorithms that generate test cases from specifications, reducing human effort while maintaining or improving consistency and quality through standardized automated processes

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

4Quantity of substance

If individual test cases are linked to multiple software feature specifications, then the total number of test cases is reduced, but the complexity of managing test-case-specification links increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvenumber of test casesVSAvoidlink management complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Quantity of substanceVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The link management complexity is segmented into modular components where each feature specification maintains its own set of test case links independently. This segmentation allows the system to handle multiple links without overwhelming complexity, as each link is managed through standardized interfaces and data structures that can be processed independently

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS12619520B2Software engineering with machine-readable feature specifications

Publication Date: 2026.05.05 SERVICENOW INC

AI summary

Systems and methods are provided for assisted software feature (or “requirement”) generation and for the automated or semi-automated generation of test cases therefrom. Also included are improved systems and methods for associating test cases with requirements and for modifying the test cases as the requirements are modified, added, and/or removed. These embodiments allow the cost of generating and maintaining a set of requirements and test cases and the cost of validating such a set of test cases to be reduced.