Abstract:
Apparatus and method for allowing a test script to be played back correctly in a locale of different test language. The invention uses a synonymy dictionary storing the different appearances of the property value of a property in an object of a software product to be tested in different test locales; and compares the property value of the property in the object of the software product to be tested to the corresponding property value pre-recorded in a test script to detect whether they match each other.

Description:
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     Applicants claim the foreign priority benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119 of Chinese Patent Application No. 200510096612.6 filed 25 Aug. 2005. 
     FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention relates to the field of test automation and, more particularly, to an apparatus and method for enabling correct playback of test scripts generated by automated test tools in locales of different test languages. 
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     In order to improve test efficiency, different types of automated test tools, such as the Rational Functional Tester of IBM, have been developed. 
     In a typical automated testing scenario, a tester performs a series of actions on an application under test in recording mode of an automated test tool meanwhile, the test toot will generate a test script based on the actions performed. Actions, identification properties (values of the identification properties) of the target objects, and expected property values of some target objects are recorded in the test script. Such a generated test script can then be played back automatically by a test tool in a test locale. 
       FIG. 1  shows the flow chart of an illustrative process of playing back a test script in a test locale. 
     First, in Step S 101 , the automated test tool checks whether there is a next test instruction in the test script. It proceeds to Step S 105  and return a message showing that test is ended if there is no more test instructions. Otherwise, it proceeds to Step S 110  to fetch the next test instruction. 
     In Step S 115 , the automated test tool tries to search a target object based on identification property value of the object recorded in test script. In Step S 120 , it is determined whether the target object is found. It proceeds to Step S 130  to return a message indicating that the test is unsuccessful, if the target object is not found. Otherwise, it proceeds to Step S 125  to determine the type of the instruction. 
     The process proceeds to Step S 135  if the instruction is determined to be an action instruction. In Step S 135 , the action recorded in test script is performed against the target object. And then it returns to Step S 101  to continue the process. 
     The process proceeds to Step S 155  if the instruction determined in Step  125  is a comparison instruction, where the property value of the target object is compared to an expected property value. In Step S 160  it is determined whether the comparison result is that the two values are identical. When the comparison result is “not identical”, the process proceeds to Step S 165  to record an error in the test log. Otherwise, it returns to Step S 101  to continue the process. 
       FIG. 2  shows the target object search process performed in Step S 115  in  FIG. 1 . 
     In  FIG. 2 , firstly, the automated test tool determines whether there is a next candidate object in Step S 201 . If it is determined that there is no more candidate object, the automated test tool returns a message indicating that the target object search is unsuccessful in Step S 205 . If there is a next candidate object, the automated test tool takes the candidate object as the current object, and fetches the identification property value of the current object in Step S 210 . In Step S 215 , it compares the identification property value of the current object to the identification property value of a target object recorded in the test script to determine whether the two values are identical. When the two values are identical, it proceeds to Step S 220  to return a message indicating that the target object search is successful. Otherwise, it returns to Step S 201  to continue the target object search process. 
       FIG. 3  shows the property value comparison process performed in Step S 155  in  FIG. 1 . 
     In Step S 301 , the process compares the property value of the searched target object to the expected property value of the corresponding object recorded in the test script. When the two values are identical, it proceeds to Step S 305  to return a message indicating that the comparison result is “identical”. Otherwise, when the two values are not identical, it proceeds to Step S 310  to return a message indicating the comparison result is “not identical”. 
     Globalized software products need to be tested in different locales to verify their functions in different language locates. A globalized software product usually has different appearances in different language locales, such as in China and in US. For example, English interfaces are used in US while Chinese interfaces are used in China. It means that the property values for the same object are different in different language locales. 
     Traditional automated test tools compare property values of objects literally. For example, in Step S 215  of  FIG. 2  and Step S 301  of  FIG. 3 , the property values are compared with each other literally. 
     There is a problem with traditional automated test tools. That is, the test script generated in one language locale cannot be played back correctly in another language locale. Taking the target object “Press button” as an example, the property value of it in the test script generated in English locale is “OK” in English, while the property value of it in the test script generated in Chinese circumstance is “           ” in Chinese. And thus the test script generated in English circumstance will not be able to play back correctly in Chinese locale. In particular, in Step S 215  in  FIG. 2  and Step S 301  in  FIG. 3 , it will have a result that the target object search is unsuccessful or the comparison result is “not identical.”
     Normally, there are two methods to walk around this problem. One is to modify the generated test script to enable playing back of it in other language locales; the other is to generate different test scripts for different language locales. However, these methods cost much time and efforts, and make scripts difficult to maintain. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     In one embodiment, an automated test method that includes using a synonymy dictionary, which stores the different appearances of the property value of a property in an object of a software product to be tested in different test locales. The property value of the property in the object of the software product to be tested is compared to the corresponding property value pre-recorded in a test script to detect whether they match with each other. 
     In another embodiment, an automated test apparatus includes a storage for storing a synonymy dictionary, wherein the synonymy dictionary stores the different appearances of the property value of a property in an object of a software product to be tested in different test locales. A semantic-based property value comparison unit is also included for comparing the property value of the property in the object of the software product to be tested to the corresponding property value pre-recorded in a test script to detect whether they match each other. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         FIG. 1  is a flow chart of an illustrative process of playing back the test script in a test locale; 
         FIG. 2  is a flow chart of a target object search process; 
         FIG. 3  is a flow chart of a property value comparison process; 
         FIG. 4  is a block diagram of the automated test apparatus according to the present invention; 
         FIG. 5  is a flow chart of the target object search process according to the present invention; and 
         FIG. 6  is a flow chart of the property value comparison process according to the present invention. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
       FIG. 4  is a block diagram of the automated test apparatus according to the present invention. Referring to this figure, the automated test apparatus according to the invention enables the test script to be played back correctly in test locales of different languages. An advantage can be implemented by replacing the module(s) performing the function of target object search and/or property value comparison in known automated test tools with the automated test apparatus according to the invention. Further, the automated test apparatus according to the invention may be a separate assist tool. In the later case, when the known automated test tools play back test scripts, they transfer the property value comparison work to the automated test apparatus according to the invention, in order to realize the object of the invention. The automated test apparatus according to the invention is especially used when the property values are compared during the play back of a test script. The automated test apparatus according to the invention comprises a semantic-based target object search unit  401 , a semantic-based target object property value comparison unit  405 , a synonymy input unit  420  and a synonymy dictionary (synonymy storage)  410 . 
     The synonymy dictionary  410  stores synonymies. The synonymy dictionary  410  can be implemented by being stored in memory, or by being stored in other external storage and being read into the memory as necessary. Strings having the same meaning are associated and stored together within one group or one record or in any other manner. The following description assumes that strings with the same meaning are stored in one group. 
     The synonymy input unit  420  comprises a synonymy import unit  4201  and a synonymy edit unit  4205 , for inputting the synonymies involved in globalized software products into the synonymy dictionary  410 . 
     The synonymy import unit  4201  extracts strings with the same meaning from known resource bundles of globalized software as synonymies and stores them into the synonymy dictionary  410 . 
     The synonymy edit unit  4205  provides a user interface for a user so as to manually edit the synonymies in the dictionary. 
     The synonymy dictionary  410  is edited by using the synonymy input unit  420  so as to make sure that the different appearances in different language locales for one property value are included in the same group. For example, for the property “OK”, the English string “OK”, the Chinese character “           ” and the Japanese character “         ” . . . are stored in the same group. The synonymy dictionary  410  can be updated by using the synonymy input unit  420  according to the language circumstance to be applied.
     According to the invention, the synonymy dictionary  410  can be repeatedly used by a plurality of test scripts. 
     The semantic-based target object search unit  401  compares the property value of the candidate object to the identification property value in the test script to detect whether they are in the same group in the synonymy dictionary  410 . The comparison result will be “identical” if they are in the same group. 
     The semantic-based target object property value comparison unit  405  compares the property value of the target object. For the property value of the property of the searched target object, it detects whether it is in the same group with the expected property value of the property of the corresponding target object stored in the test script. The comparison result will be “identical” if they are in the same group. 
     In the present embodiment, the semantic-based target object search unit  401  and the semantic-based target object property value comparison unit  405  separately searches the target object and compare the property value of the target object. However, it will be apparent for the persons in the art that the above two units can be combined as one single functional block (property value comparison unit) to implement the comparison of property values; or only the semantic-based target object search unit  401  is used for performing the target object search; or only the semantic-based target object property value comparison unit  405  is used for performing the comparison of the property values of objects. 
     Further, the invention may be introduced only when the property values are compared, while other processes related to the test are implemented by automated test tools. 
     The above functional units of the invention can be implemented in the manner of an executing program in the CPU of a common computer, or a hardware logical circuits or the combination of hardware and software or firmware. 
     The target object search process according to the invention will be described by referring to  FIG. 5 . The same reference numerals are used for the parts that are the same as in  FIG. 2 . 
     Firstly, the automated test tool determines whether there is a next candidate object in Step S 201 . When it determines there is not a next candidate object, the automated test tool returns a message indicating the target object search is unsuccessful in Step S 205 . When it determines there is a next candidate object, the automated test tool takes the candidate object as the current object, and fetches the identification property value of the current object in Step S 210 . 
     In Step S 515 , the semantic-based target object search unit  401  according to the invention compares the identification property value of the current candidate object to the identification property value of a target object recorded in the test script, to determine whether the two values are identical. When the two values are identical, it proceeds to Step S 220  to return a message that the target object search is successful. Otherwise, it proceeds to Step S 525 . 
     In Step S 525 , the semantic-based target object search unit  401  retrieves the synonymy dictionary  410  based on the identification property value of the current object and the identification property value of the target object recorded in the test script. In Step S 530 , the semantic-based target object search unit  401  detects whether the identification property value of the current object and the identification property value of the target object are located in the same group in the synonymy dictionary  410 . When they are in the same group, it proceeds to Step S 220  to return a message indicating the target object search is successful. Otherwise, it returns to Step S 201  to continue the process. 
     With the above process, the test script can be correctly played back to successfully search out target objects, even if the test script is played back in a locale of different language from where it is generated. 
     The target object property value comparison process will be described by referring to  FIG. 6 . The same reference numerals are used for the parts which are the same as in  FIG. 2 . 
     In Step S 601 , the semantic-based target object property value comparison unit  405  compares the property value of the searched target object to the expected property value of the corresponding object recorded in the test script. When the two values are identical, it proceeds to Step S 305  to return a message indicating that the comparison result is “identical”. When the two values are not identical, it proceeds to Step S 610 . 
     In Step S 610 , the semantic-based target object property value comparison unit  405  retrieves the synonymy dictionary  410  based on the property value of the target object and the expected property value. In Step S 615 , the semantic-based target object property value comparison unit  405  detects whether the property value of the target object and the expected property value are located in the same group in the synonymy dictionary  410 . When they are in the same group, it proceeds to Step S 305 . Otherwise, it proceeds to Step S 310  to output a message indicating that the comparison result is “not identical”. 
     With the above process, the test script can be correctly played back to successfully take the comparison test against the property value of the target object even if the test script is played back in a locale of different language from where it is generated. 
     It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the invention may be used in test locales of the same language as the generating locale. In this case, different synonymies for one property in the same test language locale are stored in the synonymy dictionary. For example, in the Chinese test environment, the Chinese characters “           ”, “         ” and “         ” represent the same property value, and they are stored in one group. When two property values to be compared are in one group it is determined that the test passes.
     In addition the above operation process can be implemented in the form of a program executable by computer stored in different medium, or by being downloaded from communication network and being executed by computer. The medium for providing the program comprises, for example, memory or memory unit, semiconductor, disk unit such as optical disk, magnetic disk and magneto-optic disk or any other medium suitable for storing information. 
     The present invention may have a plurality of varied embodiments within the spirit and scope of the invention. Therefore, it will be appreciated that, the scope of protection of the invention is defined by the following claims, but not limited to the specific embodiments. 
     While the embodiments of the invention have been described in detail with reference to attached drawings, various changes and modifications may be made to the above embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Therefore, the scope of the invention is only defined by the attached claims.