IP Library Patent Application 17202445
Patent Application
App. No. 17/202,445

QUALIFYING IMPACTS OF THIRD-PARTY CODE CHANGES ON DEPENDENT SOFTWARE

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 None
App. No.
17/202,445
Abstract

A method for creating a learning model that evaluates risks of applying commits in a third-party product to a dependent product is disclosed. The method includes collecting data on past commits; training the learning model using the collected data; and using the learning model to determine if future commits are problematic.

Claims (26)

1 . A method of using a learning model to test commits from a third-party product into a dependent product, the method comprising:

receiving a commit from the third-party product;

testing the commit using a pre-trained learning model;

determining if the commit is problematic, and if the commit is problematic, sending the commit for review before implementation and sending a report to a reviewer outlining the level of risk of implementing the commit and a reason for the level or risk.

2 . The method according to claim 1 , wherein testing the commit includes determining a commit complexity.

3 . The method according to claim 2 , wherein the commit complexity includes number of characters in a commit message, a number of files changed, a number of code lines added and a number of code lines removed.

4 . The method according to claim 2 , wherein testing the commit further includes determining an author experience.

5 . The method according to claim 4 , wherein the author experience includes a number of previous commits, a total number of code lines added and a total number of code lines removed.

6 . The method according to claim 4 , wherein testing the commit further includes an author's name.

7 . The method according to claim 6 , wherein testing the commit further includes determining a component affected by the commit.

8 . The method according to claim 1 , further comprising if the future commit is not problematic, implementing the future commit, wherein manual review time by a person is reduced.

9 . The method of claim 1 , wherein implementing the future commit includes copying a pre-built version of the library rather than applying changes to an existing library.

10 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the reason includes commit complexity, author experience, author's name or which component the commit affects.

11 . A non-transitory machine readable memory medium including instructions when executed to cause a processor to perform the following actions:

receiving a commit from the third-party product;

testing the commit using a pre-trained learning model;

determining if the commit is problematic, and if the commit is problematic, sending the commit for review before implementation and sending a report to a reviewer outlining the level of risk of implementing the commit and a reason for the level or risk.

12 . The non-transitory machine readable memory medium according to claim 11 , wherein testing the commit includes determining a commit complexity.

13 . The non-transitory machine readable memory medium according to claim 12 , wherein the commit complexity includes number of characters in a commit message, a number of files changed, a number of code lines added and a number of code lines removed.

14 . The non-transitory machine readable memory medium according to claim 12 , wherein testing the commit further includes determining an author experience.

15 . The non-transitory machine readable memory medium according to claim 14 , wherein the author experience includes a number of previous commits, a total number of code lines added and a total number of code lines removed.

16 . The non-transitory machine readable memory medium according to claim 14 , wherein testing the commit further includes an author's name.

17 . The non-transitory machine readable memory medium according to claim 16 , wherein testing the commit further includes determining a component affected by the commit.

18 . The non-transitory machine readable memory medium according to claim 11 , further comprising if the future commit is not problematic, implementing the future commit, wherein manual review time by a person is reduced.

19 . The non-transitory machine readable memory medium of claim 11 , wherein implementing the future commit includes copying a pre-built version of the library rather than applying changes to an existing library.

20 . The non-transitory machine readable memory medium of claim 12 , wherein the reason includes commit complexity, author experience, author's name or which component the commit affects.

Assignments (1)
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Jun 14, 2021
From: UNISYS CORPORATION
To: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Reel/Frame 056531/0254 →