IP Library › Granted Patent US 9,311,218
Granted Patent B2
US 9,311,218 · App. 13/884,328 · Granted Apr 12, 2016

Method and apparatus for the determination of a quality assessment of a software code with determination of the assessment coverage

Inventors: Christian Körner (Bergen, DE); Matthias Saft (Olching, DE)
Assignee: SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
G06F11/3616G06F8/77
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 9,311,218
App. No.
13/884,328
Filed
May 9, 2013
Granted
Apr 12, 2016
Kind
B2
Examiner
WEI, ZHENG
Art Unit
2192
USPC
717/127
Abstract

In a method for determining a quality assessment of a software code, the coverage is concomitantly calculated when determining the assessment. In order to increase the coverage, additional measurement results and assessments may be taken into account. Following changes to the software base, it is determined which of the additional measurements and assessment results should be renewed in order to provide or ensure the defined coverage.

Claims (35)

1. A method for determining a quality assessment of a software code and the assessment coverage, comprising:

performing a static code analysis of the software code with the aid of predetermined rule and/or metric definitions and outputting identified rule infringements and object dimensions, which include results of the metrics for software objects;

assessing the identified rule infringements and object dimensions based on predetermined assessment functions and outputting assessed rule infringements;

aggregating the assessed rule infringements based on a predetermined quality aspect hierarchy and outputting a quality-aspect-related quality assessment of the software code;

determining a quality-aspect-related assessment coverage factor based on a predetermined aggregation function and normalization of the identified quality-aspect-related quality assessment to the identified assessment coverage factor and outputting an assessment coverage of the quality-aspect-related quality assessment;

identifying a subset of software code objects that have changed in comparison with software code objects already previously determined in the quality assessment;

only for the identified subset of changed software code objects, determining quality-assessment tasks to be performed manually for the identified subset of changed software code objects, based on the assessment coverage of the quality-aspect-related quality assessment; and

outputting an updated assessment coverage taking into account the assessment effort for the determined quality-assessment tasks.

2. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

outputting a multi-quality-aspect-encompassing quality assessment of the software code based on the aggregated assessed rule infringements.

3. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

assessment of an effort required for the rectification of the assessed rule infringements based on predetermined rule properties and the identified object dimensions; and

outputting effort-assessed corrective actions.

4. The method of claim 3 , further comprising:

sorting the effort-assessed corrective actions according to the amount of effort required and/or severity of the rule infringement; and

outputting a group of effort-assessed corrective actions based on predetermined target-achievement data.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein the outputting of assessed rule infringements includes the outputting of assessed rule infringements by software code objects that have changed in comparison with already quality-assessed software code objects.

6. A system for determining a quality assessment of a software code and the assessment coverage, comprising:

a processor, and

a non-transitory, computer readable memory comprising instructions programmed to:

perform a static code analysis of the software code with the aid of predetermined rule and/or metric definitions and outputting identified rule infringements and object dimensions, which include results of the metrics for software objects;

assess the identified rule infringements and object dimensions based on predetermined assessment functions and outputting assessed rule infringements;

aggregate the assessed rule infringements based on a predetermined quality aspect hierarchy and outputting a quality-aspect-related quality assessment of the software code;

identify a subset of software code objects that have changed in comparison with software code objects already previously determined in the quality assessment;

only for the identified subset of changed software code objects, determining quality-assessment tasks to be performed manually for the identified subset of changed software code objects, based on the assessment coverage of the quality-aspect-related quality assessment; and

output an updated assessment coverage taking into account the assessment effort for the determined quality-assessment tasks.

7. The system of claim 6 , further comprising instructions programmed to:

output a multi-quality-aspect-encompassing quality assessment of the software code based on the aggregated assessed rule infringements.

8. The system of claim 6 , further comprising instructions programmed to:

assessment of an effort required for the rectification of the assessed rule infringements based on predetermined rule properties and the identified object dimensions; and

output effort-assessed corrective actions.

9. The system of claim 8 , further comprising instructions programmed to:

sort the effort-assessed corrective actions according to the amount of effort required and/or severity of the rule infringement; and

output a group of effort-assessed corrective actions based on predetermined target-achievement data.

10. The system of claim 6 , wherein the instructions programmed to output assessed rule infringements output assessed rule infringements by software code objects that have changed in comparison with already quality-assessed software objects.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 15, 2013
From: KORNER, CHRISTIAN; SAFT, MATTHIAS
To: SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
Reel/Frame 030420/0511 →
Priority Claims (2)
DE 10 2010 043 623 · Nov 9, 2010 · national
DE 10 2011 006 215 · Mar 28, 2011 · national
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20130232472A1 · Sep 5, 2013