|
Software Patent Abstract
A method, apparatus and computer program product are provided for
implementing autonomic testing and verification of software fix
programs or program temporary fixes (PTFs). A software fix program
including multiple patches or a program temporary fix (PTF) including
multiple programs is received. Each patch or program of the multiple
patches or multiple programs of the software fix program or PTF
is sequentially applied to a software product. The software product
is tested responsive to each sequentially applied patch or program.
Then next iterations or different combinations of patches or programs
are sequentially applied to a software product and then the software
product is tested responsive to each of the applied iterations.
Software Patent Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs comprising the steps of: receiving a software
fix program; said software fix program including multiple patches;
sequentially applying each patch of said multiple patches of said
software fix program to a software product; testing said software
product responsive to each said sequentially applied patch; providing
test results to a user responsive to said testing of said software
product; sequentially applying iterations of each patch of said
multiple patches of said software fix program to a software product
and different combinations of said patches to the software product;
calling a test program and receiving expected test results for each
applied iteration to the software product; testing said software
product for each applied iteration to the software product; and
comparing test results to the expected test results for each applied
iteration to the software product; and saving test results for each
applied iteration to the software product and displaying said test
results to the user.
2. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 1 wherein said software
fix program includes a program temporary fix (PTF); said PTF including
multiple patches or programs.
3. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 2 includes the step
of providing an isolation manager for receiving said PTF and for
sequentially applying each patch or program of said multiple patches
or programs of said PTF to said software product.
4. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 3 includes the step
of providing a user interface coupled to said isolation manager
for receiving user input selections and reporting results to the
user.
5. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 2 wherein the step
of receiving said software fix program including said program temporary
fix (PTF) includes receiving a set of PTFs, each said PTF containing
multiple patches or programs; and wherein each patch or program
contained in said group of PTFs is sequentially applied to said
software product.
6. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 2 includes providing
an isolation manager for receiving said software fix program including
said program temporary fix (PTF) and for sequentially applying each
patch or program of said multiple patches or programs of said software
fix program or said program temporary fix (PTF) to said software
product; and wherein said isolation manager, responsive to a manual
isolation user option, applies a patch or program of the multiple
patches or programs of said software fix program or said program
temporary fix (PTF) to said software product, notifies the user
of said patch or program applied to said software product, and waits
for a user option of next or done.
7. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 6 wherein said isolation
manager, responsive to receiving said next user option, applies
a next patch or a next program of the multiple programs of said
software fix program or said program temporary fix (PTF) to a software
product, notifies the user of the next patch or next program applied
to the software product, and waits for a user option of next or
done.
8. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 2 includes providing
an isolation manager for receiving said software fix program including
said program temporary fix (PTF) and for sequentially applying each
patch or program of said multiple patches or programs of said software
fix program or said program temporary fix (PTF) to said software
product; and wherein said test program and said expected test results
are input to the isolation manager; said isolation manager sequentially
applies iterations of each patch or program of the multiple patches
or programs of said software fix program or said program temporary
fix (PTF) and different combinations of the patches or programs
to the software product and calls said test program for each applied
iteration to the software product.
9. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 8 wherein said isolation
manager compares test results with the expected test results for
each applied iteration and notifies the user when the test results
are different from the expected test results.
10. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 2 includes providing
an isolation manager for receiving said software fix program including
said program temporary fix (PTF) and for sequentially applying each
patch or program of said multiple patches or programs of said software
fix program or said program temporary fix (PTF) to said software
product; and wherein said test program is input to the isolation
manager; said isolation manager sequentially applies iterations
of each patch or program of the multiple patches or programs of
said software fix program or said program temporary fix (PTF) and
different combinations of said patches or programs to the software
product and calls the test program for each applied iteration to
the software product.
11. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 10 wherein said isolation
manager saves test results in a results table for each applied iteration
to the software product and displays said test results to the user.
12. A method for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 11 wherein said isolation
manager compares all test results to each other test result to identify
a problem patch or program.
13. Apparatus for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs comprising: an isolation manager receiving
a software fix program containing a plurality of patches; a user
interface coupled to said isolation manager receiving user input
selections and reporting results to a user; said isolation manager
sequentially applying each patch of said plurality of patches to
a software product; and testing said software product responsive
to each said sequentially applied program; and providing test results
to a user responsive to said testing of said software product; and
said isolation manager sequentially applying iterations of each
patch of said multiple patches of said software fix program to the
software product and different combinations of said patches to the
software product; calling a test program and receiving expected
test results for each applied iteration to the software product;
testing said software product for each applied iteration to the
software product; and comparing test results to the expected test
results for each applied iteration to the software product; and
saving test results for each applied iteration to the software product
and displaying said test results to the user.
14. Apparatus for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 13 wherein said software
fix programs include multiple program temporary fixes (PTFs); each
PTF containing a plurality of programs; and wherein said isolation
manager is responsive to receiving a set of PTFs, for sequentially
applying each program contained in said set of PTFs to said software
product, and for testing said software product responsive to each
said sequentially applied program.
15. Apparatus for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 13 wherein said software
fix programs include multiple program temporary fixes (PTFs); each
PTF containing a plurality of programs; and wherein said isolation
manager is responsive to a manual isolation user option, for applying
a program of the multiple programs of the PTF to said software product,
for notifying the user of the program applied to said software product,
and for waiting for a user option of next or done.
16. Apparatus for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 15 wherein said software
fix programs include multiple program temporary fixes (PTFs); each
PTF containing a plurality of programs; and wherein said isolation
manager is responsive to receiving said next user option for applying
a next program of the multiple programs of the PTF to said software
product, for notifying the user of the next program applied to the
software product, and for waiting for a user option of next or done.
17. Apparatus for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 13 wherein said software
fix programs include multiple program temporary fixes (PTFs); each
PTF containing a plurality of programs; and wherein said isolation
manager is responsive to receiving a test program; for sequentially
applying iterations of each program of the multiple programs of
the PTF and different combinations of the programs to the software
product and for calling said test program for each applied iteration
to the software product.
18. Apparatus for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 17 wherein said isolation
manager is responsive to receiving expected test results for comparing
test results with said expected test results for each applied iteration
and for notifying the user when said test results are different
from said expected test results.
19. Apparatus for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 17 wherein said isolation
manager is adapted for saving test results in a results table for
each applied iteration to the software product and for displaying
said test results to the user.
20. Apparatus for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs as recited in claim 19 wherein said isolation
manager is adapted for comparing all test results to each other
test result to identify a problem program.
21. A computer program product for implementing autonomic testing
and verification of software fix programs in a computer system,
said computer program product including a plurality of computer
executable instructions stored on a computer recording medium consisting
one of a floppy disk, a high capacity read only memory in the form
of an optically read compact disk or CD-ROM, and a tape, wherein
said instructions, when executed by the computer system cause the
computer system to perform the steps of: receiving a software fix
program, said software fix program including multiple patches; sequentially
applying each patch of said multiple patches of said software fix
program to a software product; testing said software product responsive
to each said sequentially applied patch; providing test results
to a user responsive to said testing of said software product; sequentially
applying iterations of each patch of said multiple patches of said
software fix program to a software product and different combinations
of said patches to the software product; calling a test program
and receiving expected test results for each applied iteration to
the software product; testing said software product for each applied
iteration to the software product; and comparing test results to
the expected test results for each applied iteration to the software
product; and saving test results for each applied iteration to the
software product and displaying said test results to the user.
Mobile Phone Patent Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to the data processing
field, and more particularly, relates to a method, apparatus and
computer program product for implementing autonomic testing and
verification of software fix programs.
DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATED ART
After a software product is released, the producer may provide
interim updates or fixes for the software product before the next
release of the software product. These updates or fixes between
releases may be referred to as program temporary fixes (PTFs).
On some systems, program temporary fixes (PTFs) may be sent out
to customers as group PTFs or fix packs. These fix packs often contain
multiple PTFs. At times a PTF is shipped which resolves one problem
but introduces another problem. It can be extremely difficult to
isolate which PTF causes the new problem, and the usual approach
is for a programmer to debug the new problem for the overall software
product.
Another layer of complexity is that a single PTF will often contain
multiple programs and/or service programs. For example, on an IBM
eServer iSeries.RTM. system, one PTF contained seven programs and
one service program. It would save many hours of support and debug
time if one could quickly isolate which program or service program
within a PTF introduced the new problem.
Another layer of complexity on the IBM iSeries system, and which
may be typical of other systems, is that when a PTF is applied to
the system and then superseded by another PTF applied later, the
first PTF may be forced to the permanently applied state as opposed
to temporarily applied state. Also PTFs are applied permanently
for many other reasons. Once a PTF is permanently applied, there
is no easy way to temporarily remove the PTF to verify if the problem
goes away when that PTF is removed.
Another complexity is that some PTFs are marked as delayed, meaning
that an initial program load (IPL) or reboot may be required to
apply them. Removing and re-applying the PTFs marked as delayed
may require one or more IPLs of the system, which is very time consuming
and prohibitive.
In addition to customer environments, these same situations are
encountered on test machines in the development laboratories, such
as when groups of these PTFs are applied for group testing, or when
a few PTFs are applied for pre-group test. Even in these test environments
when only a few PTFs are applied, it is difficult and time consuming
to isolate problem PTFs and each problem program within these PTFs.
A need exists for a mechanism to autonomically isolate problems
resulting from PTFs and further isolate programs within these PTFs
that cause the problems. Such a mechanism could save significant
time in both laboratory environments and customer support environments.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
One aspect of the present invention is to provide a method, apparatus
and computer program product for implementing autonomic testing
and verification of software fix programs. Other important aspects
of the present invention are to provide such method, apparatus and
computer program product for implementing autonomic testing and
verification of software fix programs substantially without negative
effect and that overcome many of the disadvantages of prior art
arrangements.
In brief, a method, apparatus and computer program product are
provided for implementing autonomic testing and verification of
software fix programs or program temporary fixes (PTFs). A software
fix program including multiple patches is received. Each patch of
the multiple patches of the software fix program is sequentially
applied to a software product. The software product is tested responsive
to each sequentially applied patch.
In accordance with features of the invention, after all of the
multiple patches or programs of a program temporary fix (PTF) have
been applied to the software product, then next iterations of different
combinations of the patches or programs are sequentially applied
to a software product and the software product is tested responsive
to each applied iteration.
In accordance with features of the invention, an isolation manager
is provided for receiving the software fix program or PTF and for
sequentially applying each patch or program of the multiple patches
or programs of the PTF to the software product. A user interface
is coupled to the isolation manager for receiving user input selections
and reporting results to the user. A software fix program or PTF
or a group of software fix programs or PTFs are input to the isolation
manager.
In accordance with features of the invention, responsive to a manual
isolation user option, the isolation manager applies a program of
the multiple programs of the PTF to a software product, notifies
the user of the program applied to the software product, and waits
for a user option of next or done. When the next user option is
received, then the isolation manager applies a next program of the
multiple programs of the PTF to a software product, notifies the
user of the program applied to the software product, and waits for
a user option of next or done.
In accordance with features of the invention, responsive to an
autonomic isolation user selection, a test program is input to the
isolation manager and expected test results are input to the isolation
manager. Each program of the multiple programs of the PTF and iterations
of different combinations of the programs are sequentially applied
to the software product and the isolation manager calls the test
program. The isolation manager compares test results with the expected
test results and notifies the user when the test results are different
from the expected test results.
In addition, as another option, in accordance with features of
the invention, a test program is input to the isolation manager
and expected test results are not input. Each program of the multiple
programs of the PTF and iterations of different combinations of
the programs are sequentially applied to the software product and
the isolation manager calls the test program. The isolation manager
saves the test results in a results table and displays the results
to the user. Auto analysis of the test results includes comparing
all results to each other result for identifying a problem program.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The present invention together with the above and other objects
and advantages may best be understood from the following detailed
description of the preferred embodiments of the invention illustrated
in the drawings, wherein:
FIG. 1 is a block diagram representation illustrating a computer
system for implementing autonomic testing and verification of software
fix programs or program temporary fixes (PTFs) in accordance with
the preferred embodiment;
FIG. 2 illustrates an isolation manager and user interface of the
computer system of FIG. 1 for implementing autonomic testing and
verification of software fix programs or program temporary fixes
(PTFs) in accordance with the preferred embodiment;
FIGS. 3A, 3B, and 3C together provide a flow chart illustrating
exemplary steps for implementing autonomic testing and verification
of software fix programs or program temporary fixes (PTFs) in accordance
with the preferred embodiment; and
FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating a computer program product
in accordance with the preferred embodiment.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
Referring now to the drawings, in FIG. 1 there is shown a computer
system generally designated by the reference character 100 for implementing
autonomic testing and verification of software fix programs or program
temporary fixes (PTFs) in accordance with the preferred embodiment.
Computer system 100 includes a main processor 102 or central processor
unit (CPU) 102 coupled by a system bus 106 to a memory management
unit (MMU) 108 and system memory including a dynamic random access
memory (DRAM) 110, a nonvolatile random access memory (NVRAM) 112,
and a flash memory 114. A mass storage interface 116 coupled to
the system bus 106 and MMU 108 connects a direct access storage
device (DASD) 118 and a CD-ROM drive 120 to the main processor 102.
Computer system 100 includes a display interface 122 connected to
a display 124, and a network interface 126 coupled to the system
bus 106.
As shown in FIG. 2, computer system 100 includes an isolation manager
(IM) 200 of the preferred embodiment, and a user interface 202.
IM 200 receives a software fix program or program temporary fix
(PTF) 204 to be applied to a software product (SP) 206. User interface
202 includes input of test cases into the IM 200, or alternatively
user initiated test cases.
In accordance with features of one embodiment, isolation manager
(IM) 200 provides an autonomic interface for autonomic testing and
verification of software fix programs or program temporary fixes
PTFs 204. Each software fix program or PTF 204 typically includes
multiple patches or multiple program objects. IM 200 provides autonomic
testing and verification of each object within a PTF 204 or a set
of program temporary fixes PTFs 204 to identify a problem object.
A manual assist option also is provided where the user inputs to
the IM 200 the PTF 200 or set of PTFs to be isolated. IM 200 enables
the user using the manual assist option to test isolated single
objects and combinations of objects within the PTF 204 or set of
PTFs 204 to identify a problem object.
Various commercially available computers can be used for computer
system 100; for example, an iSeries computer system manufactured
and sold by International Business Machines Corporation and processor
102 can be implemented, for example, by one of a line of PowerPC
processors manufactured and sold by International Business Machines
Corporation. Central processor unit 102 is suitably programmed to
execute the flowchart of FIGS. 3A, 3B, and 3C to implement autonomic
testing and verification of software fix programs or program temporary
fixes (PTFs) of the preferred embodiment.
Referring now to FIGS. 3A, 3B, and 3C, there are shown exemplary
steps for implementing autonomic testing and verification of software
fix programs or program temporary fixes (PTFs) in accordance with
the preferred embodiment. The illustrated exemplary steps are described
for an example PTF 204 or a set of PTFs 204 containing a plurality
of programs, referred to as programs A, B, and C. First the single
PTF or a set of PTFs 204 containing programs A, B, and C is input
to the IM 200 as indicated in a block 300. Checking for a user selected
manual isolation option is performed as indicated in a decision
block 302. When the user selected manual isolation option is identified,
then the sequential steps continue following entry point A in FIG.
3B.
Referring now to FIG. 3B, there are shown exemplary steps for manually
testing and isolating each program in the PTF that may be causing
a problem. To isolate and test each of the programs A, B, C within
the PTF 204 or set of PTFs 204, the IM 200 applies a single object
or program of the PTF 204 to the SP 206 and notifies the user of
which program was just applied to prompt the user to run their test
with this one object isolated, and IM 200 waits for the user option
next or done as indicated in a block 304. The user then tries his
test, and if it failed with that single object isolated or applied,
the user then knows that this object caused the problem. If the
test did not fail, the user would call the IM 200 again for the
next object selecting the NEXT option in the PTFs, and repeats until
all objects have been isolated and/or the problem object is found.
For example, IM 200 first applies program A to the SP 206, next
program B, and finally program C at block 304.
In the following example, an entry point table (EPT) is defined
to be a mechanism for notifying the system to call the program object
or objects within the entry point table instead of the program objects
of the same name that are in the operating system. Thus, an EPT
is a common means known in the art for temporarily replacing a program
object in the operating system. IM 200 automates program or object
isolation, for example, by renaming each program or object for each
PTF 204. PTFs 204 need not be applied and removed, but merely by
managed placement, object by object within each PTF, via a temporary
renaming of the objects within each PTF. For example, in order to
isolate which object caused the problem, at block 304, each object
in the PTF 204 are renamed and with the PTF 204 removed then each
renamed object in the PTF 204 is selectively added to an entry point
table, one at a time, first by copying each renamed object into
a library, then renaming the object back to its original name, and
then adding the object in that library to an entry point table and
replacing that entry point table so that just this object (program)
in the PTF 204 will be called during the test, and the other objects
in the PTF 204 will not be called.
Checking for the user option NEXT is performed as indicated in
a decision block 306. When the user option NEXT is not identified
or the user option done is identified, then the manual isolation
steps are done or exit as indicated in a block 307. When the user
option NEXT is identified, checking whether all single programs
have been applied is performed as indicated in a decision block
308. If all single programs have not been applied, then the operations
return to block 304 to apply a next single program and continue.
If all single programs have been applied, then the IM 200 backs
off all programs of the PTF 204 or group of PTFs 204 and a next
iteration of programs is applied to the SP 206. For example, the
next iteration of programs sequentially applied are A-B, A-C, and
B-C as indicated in a block 310. IM 200 informs the user of which
combination of programs was applied and waits for the user option
next or done as indicated in a block 312. Checking for the user
option NEXT is performed as indicated in a decision block 314. When
the user option NEXT is identified, checking whether all iterations
are done is performed as indicated in a decision block 316. If not,
then the sequential operations return to block 310 to apply a next
iteration of programs and continue. When the user option NEXT is
not identified at decision block 314 or after all iterations are
done as identified at decision block 316, then the manual isolation
steps are done or exit as indicated in a block 318.
Referring now to FIG. 3A, when the user selected manual isolation
option is not identified at decision block 302, then checking whether
less advanced autonomic isolation is selected as indicated in a
decision block 320. If less advanced autonomic isolation is not
selected, then the sequential steps continue following entry point
B in FIG. 3C. When less advanced autonomic isolation is selected,
then the user in addition to inputting to the IM 200 each PTF 204
to be isolated, also inputs the application or test program, to
be called for each iteration of object isolation as indicated in
a block 322. The user inputs to the IM 200 the expected results
or outputs of the application as indicated in a block 324. As indicated
in a block 326, the IM 200 sequentially applies iterations of the
programs to the SP 206, for example, A, B, C, A-B, A-C, B-C, A-B-C.
For each iteration, the test program is called as indicated in a
block 328 and the results are compared with the expected results
as indicated in a decision block 330. When the results equal the
expected results, the isolated object or isolated combination of
object for the current iteration is logged into a table of success/fail
combinations as indicated in a block 332. Checking whether all combination
are done is performed as indicated in a decision block 334. When
all combinations are done, then the autonomic isolation steps are
done or exit as indicated in a block 336. When the outputs of the
application do not agree with the expected output for a given isolation,
IM 200 informs the user of combinations that worked and returns
that isolated object or combination of objects for the iteration
and its PTF 204 as the cause of the problem as indicated in a block
338. In addition, the IM 200 may also inform the user of the most
simple combination that produced the incorrect result. For example,
suppose that A-B caused the failure as well as A-B-C. Then report
A-B as the cause. This way, the user would know that the combination
with C (A-B-C) that failed was not due to C but was due to A-B.
Then the autonomic isolation steps are done or exit as indicated
in a block 340.
In accordance with features of the preferred embodiment, the isolation
manager (IM) 200 provides another more advanced autonomic isolation.
This more advanced automation is applied where the user inputs to
the IM 200 the PTFs 204 to be isolated and the application or test
program to call, but does not give the expected outputs. In this
case, the IM 200 reports to the user the outputs for each isolation.
The IM 200 compares the outputs for each isolation and identifies
one isolation that is not consistent with outputs of each other
isolation when running the exact same test on each isolation. The
IM reports to the user the unique result difference as the iteration
that caused the incorrect output.
Referring now to FIG. 3C, when the user selected less advanced
autonomic isolation option is not identified at decision block 320,
then the more advanced autonomic isolation is performed. Then the
user in addition to inputting to the IM 200 each PTF 204 to be isolated
at block 300 in FIG. 3A, also inputs the application or test program,
to be called for each iteration of object isolation as indicated
in a block 344. The IM 200 calls the test program and saves results
returned from the test program as R(0) in a results table and sets
a results index N to 1. Then IM 200 sequentially applies iterations
of the programs to the SP 206, for example, A, B, C, A-B, A-C, B-C,
A-B-C. For each iteration, the test program is called and the results
are stored as indicated in a block 348. Checking for all combinations
being processed is performed as indicated in a decision block 350.
If not, N is incremented as indicated in a block 352 and a next
iteration is applied returning to block 348. When all combinations
are done, then the results table is displayed to the user as indicated
in a block 354. Then checking for a user selected auto analysis
of the results is performed as indicated in a decision block 356.
If not selected, then the sequential steps of the more advanced
autonomic isolation are done and exit as indicated in a block 357.
When the user selected auto analysis of the results is identified,
then each of the results R(0)-R(N) are compared to each other result
as indicated in a block 358. Checking to determine whether all result
differences are all the same is performed, such as, result R(0)-R(1),
R(0)-R(2), . . . R(0)-R(N), as indicated in a decision block 360.
If all result differences are all the same, then the sequential
steps of the more advanced autonomic isolation are done and exit,
notifying the user that the PTF isolation found no problems as indicated
in a block 362. If all result differences are not all the same,
then checking whether one result difference is different than the
others is performed as indicated in a decision block 364. If one
result difference is different than the others, such as, results
R(0)-R(1), R(0)-R(2), R(0)-R(3), are the same, but R(0)-R(4) is
different, then the unique result difference is reported to the
user as the iteration that caused the problem as indicated in a
block 366. Otherwise, further analysis iteration may be performed
or the results table may be displayed to the user as indicated in
a block 368.
Once a problem object has been isolated, it can be autonomically
backed out by renaming the last version of the object that was good
before the PTF was applied. If there are co-requisites and superseded
PTFs associated with the PTF of this object, then all associated
objects of the affected PTFs can also be autonomically backed out
in the same manner, or the bad PTF can be removed. When the bad
object is isolated and detected, a notification can be autonomically
sent to the customer support team indicating the PTF number that
had the problem as well as the object within the PTF that caused
the problem.
Often a PTF will have a co-requisite requirement, that is, to have
another PTF applied so that they must be applied together, or a
pre-requisite requirement, for another PTF to be applied before
a given PTF is applied. For the pre-requisite case, the isolation
can be done for the pre-requisites first, since they do not have
dependencies on the later PTFs, and this is straightforward. Co-requisites
objects are isolated as a group.
In accordance with features of the preferred embodiment, the isolation
manager (IM) 200 advantageously is used for group testing environments
where scores of test cases are run when a group PTF is applied on
a test machine. A group PTF is a set of PTFs that are sent to a
customer and applied as a set as if they were one fix. In these
environments, the expected test case outputs are very controlled.
If a test case fails after a group PTF is applied, the IM 200 can
be called with the given test case, with the expected outputs, and
the list of PTFs, and the IM 200 then isolates the PTF and the object
within the PTF that caused the unexpected output.
Referring now to FIG. 4, an article of manufacture or a computer
program product 400 of the invention is illustrated. The computer
program product 400 includes a recording medium 402, such as, a
floppy disk, a high capacity read only memory in the form of an
optically read compact disk or CD-ROM, a tape, a transmission type
media such as a digital or analog communications link, or a similar
computer program product. Recording medium 402 stores program means
404, 406, 408, 410 on the medium 402 for carrying out the methods
for implementing autonomic testing and verification of software
fix programs or program temporary fixes of the preferred embodiment
in the system 100 of FIG. 1.
A sequence of program instructions or a logical assembly of one
or more interrelated modules defined by the recorded program means
404, 406, 408, 410, direct the computer system 100 for implementing
autonomic testing and verification of program temporary fixes (PTFs)
of the preferred embodiment.
While the present invention has been described with reference to
the details of the embodiments of the invention shown in the drawing,
these details are not intended to limit the scope of the invention
as claimed in the appended claims. |