Machine Learning Build Outcome Prediction
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Software development teams face challenges in maintaining the integrity of software builds due to the complexity of software artifacts, making it difficult to predict the impact of modifications before automated tests are run, which can lead to time-consuming failures and inefficiencies in CI-CD design practices.
Innovation Solution
A prediction system using a machine learning classifier that analyzes feature data associated with software builds to predict whether a build will be successful or unsuccessful, allowing for informed decision-making and reducing the risk of failures by evaluating the impact of changes without requiring complicated software code metrics.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If automated tests are run to verify software build integrity, then build reliability is improved, but development time and productivity are reduced
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies preliminary action by performing static analysis and machine learning-based predictions before automated tests are executed. The system analyzes feature data from source code, build configuration, and test information to predict potential build failures in advance, allowing teams to address issues before they reach the testing phase, thus maintaining reliability while reducing actual test execution time.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent replaces the mechanical execution of automated tests with a machine learning-based prediction system. Instead of physically running tests to detect issues, the system uses trained models that analyze code features and build parameters to predict outcomes, substituting computational prediction for empirical testing in certain scenarios.
2Manufacturing precision
If comprehensive automated testing is performed, then software quality is improved, but time consumption and resource usage increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies partial action by selectively applying static analysis and prediction models to specific high-risk areas identified through feature data analysis, rather than uniformly testing all code paths. The machine learning model prioritizes predictions for code sections with higher failure probabilities based on historical data and code characteristics.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces static analysis tools and machine learning prediction models as intermediaries between code development and automated testing. These intermediaries filter and identify potential issues before tests run, allowing the testing process to focus on critical areas rather than exhaustive coverage, thus reducing overall testing time while maintaining quality.
3Productivity
If software modifications are made to meet time constraints, then productivity is improved, but build integrity is compromised
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements feedback mechanisms where the machine learning model continuously learns from actual build outcomes and test results. The system uses feature data from previous builds, including source code changes, build parameters, and test outcomes, to refine predictions for future modifications. This feedback loop enables the system to adapt to new code patterns and provide increasingly accurate predictions, helping maintain integrity during rapid development cycles.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent applies preliminary action by providing early warnings about potential build failures before code is committed or built. The static analysis and prediction models identify risky modifications in advance, allowing developers to address issues before they affect build integrity, thus enabling faster releases without sacrificing quality.
Data Source
AI summary
Methods are provided for software build outcome prediction. For example, one method may comprise obtaining feature data associated with a software build, the feature data including one or more of the following: first data identifying a user to perform a modification on a set of one or more software artifacts, second data identifying the set of one or more software artifacts, and third data identifying a set of one or more reviewers to review the modification. The method may also comprise determining first probability data associated with the software build being unsuccessful given the feature data and second probability data associated with the software build being successful given the feature data; and predicting a software build outcome associated with the software build based on the first probability data and the second probability data.


