Patent Publication Number: US-2005144530-A1

Title: Method and apparatus for making and using wireless test verbs

Description:
RELATED APPLICATION  
      This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/377,515(entitled AUTOMATIC TESTING APPARATUS AND METHOD, filed May 1, 2002) which is herein incorporated by reference.  
      This application is related to U.S. patent application entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING AND USING TEST VERBS filed on even date herewith, to U.S. patent application entitled NON-INTRUSIVE TESTING SYSTEM AND METHOD filed on even date herewith, and to U.S. patent application entitled SOFTWARE TEST AGENTS filed on even date herewith, each of which are incorporated in their entirety by reference. 
    
    
     FIELD OF THE INVENTION  
      This invention relates to the field of computerized test systems and more specifically to a method and apparatus of making and using wireless test verbs out of combinations of simpler test commands.  
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
      Wireless information-processing devices are tested several times over the course of their life cycle, starting with their initial design and being repeated every time the product is modified. Typical wireless information-processing devices include wireless personal data assistants (PDAs), wireless phones, wireless point-of-sale devices, pagers, and wireless networked computing devices. Because products today commonly go through a sizable number of revisions and because testing typically becomes more sophisticated over time, this task becomes a larger and larger proposition. Additionally, the testing of such wireless information-processing devices is becoming more complex and time consuming because a wireless information-processing device may run on many different platforms with many different configurations in many different languages. Because of this, the testing requirements in today&#39;s wireless information-processing device development environment continue to grow exponentially.  
      For most organizations, testing is conducted by a test engineer who identifies defects by manually running the product through a defined series of steps and observing the result after each step. Because the series of steps is intended to both thoroughly exercise product functions as well as reexecute scenarios that have identified problems in the past, the testing process can be rather lengthy and time-consuming. Add on the multiplicity of tests that must be executed due to device size, platform and configuration requirements, and language requirements, testing has become a time consuming and extremely expensive process.  
      In today&#39;s economy, manufacturers of technology solutions are facing new competitive pressures that are forcing them to change the way they bring products to market. Now, being first-to-market with the latest technology is more important than ever before. But customers require that defects be uncovered and corrected before new products get to market. Additionally, there is pressure to improve profitability by cutting costs anywhere possible.  
      Product testing has become the focal point where these conflicting demands collide. Manual testing procedures, long viewed as the only way to uncover product defects, effectively delay delivery of new products to the market, and the expense involved puts tremendous pressure on profitability margins. Additionally, by their nature, manual testing procedures often fail to uncover all defects.  
      Automated testing of information-processing device products has begun replacing manual testing procedures. The benefits of test automation include reduced test personnel costs, better test coverage, and quicker time to market. However, an effective automated testing product often cannot be implemented. The most common reason for failure is the cost of creating and maintaining automated testing code. Additionally, the available automated testing products are typically are a one size fits all type of product -that is not tailored to one specific type of device.  
      The creation of test automation scripts requires a considerable amount of time and resources. The reusability of these scripts is necessary to fully realize the benefits of a test automation product. Customizing a one size fits all product to a specific type of device also requires a considerable amount of time and resources. However, when, for example, a user interface is changed or a system is implemented on a new device platform, with today&#39;s automated testing tools, all test scripts for the user interface or a specific device may need to be rewritten. Additionally, if an information-processing system operates on multiple hardware or operating-system variants, each platform requires its own test script. Further, if a system-under-test is developed in multiple languages, automated test scripts need to be created for each language.  
      What is lacking in the prior art are automated testing systems and methods that allow for the reusability of automated test scripts taking into account multiple platforms, languages, and cosmetic changes to the system-under-test. The prior art is also lacking an automated testing system and method that meets the reusability deficiency that is also tailored to meet the automated testing needs of the wireless information-process device manufacturing and development community.  
      What is needed is an automated testing system and method that is reusable across wireless platforms, handles multiple languages, and allows cosmetic changes to a wireless information-processing system-under-test. Further, the automated testing system and method must reduce test personnel costs, provide better test coverage, reduce time to market, and decrease the creation and maintenance costs of automated test scripts.  
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
      The present invention provides a computerized method for testing a function of a wireless information-processing system. This method includes providing an architecture having a set of low-level test commands, the test commands including a set of one or more stimulation commands and a set of one or more result-testing commands, and defining a set of wireless test verbs out of combinations of the low-level test commands. This allows the test programmer to define an overall test program that uses the wireless test verbs in writing a test program that specifies an overall function that will extensively test a system-under-test. The method further includes executing a program that includes a plurality of test verb instructions and outputting a result of the program.  
      Another aspect of the present invention provides a computer-readable media that includes instructions coded thereon that when executed on a suitably programmed computer executes one or more of the above methods.  
      Yet another aspect of the present invention provides a computerized system for testing a function of a wireless information-processing system. The system includes a memory, a set of test commands stored in the memory, wherein each one of the test commands includes a set of one or more stimulation commands and a set of one or more result-testing commands. The system also includes a wireless test verb instruction set program stored in the memory that defines a set of test verbs out of combinations of the test commands. A programmer then generates a test program stored in the memory that includes a plurality of wireless test verb instructions. Some embodiments further include an output port that drives stimulation signals based on the execution of the test program, an input port that receives result signals based on behavior of a system-under-test, and an output device that presents a result of the test program. 
    
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       FIG. 1  shows a system  100  according to the invention.  
       FIG. 2  is a flow diagram of a method  200  according to the invention.  
       FIG. 3  is a flow diagram of a method  300  according to the invention.  
       FIG. 4  shows a system  400  according to the invention.  
       FIG. 5  is a diagram of an architecture according to the invention.  
       FIG. 6  is a database table diagram according to the invention.  
       FIG. 7  is a database table diagram according to the invention.  
       FIG. 8  shows example test vocabularies.  
       FIG. 9  shows the flow of a method  900  for locating a graphical user interface object on the display of a system-under-test according to the invention. 
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION  
      In the following detailed description of the invention, reference is made to the accompanying drawings that form a part hereof, and in which are shown by way of illustration specific embodiments in which the invention may be practiced. It is understood that other embodiments may be utilized and structural changes may be made without departing from the scope of the present invention.  
      The leading digit(s) of reference numbers appearing in the Figures generally corresponds to the Figure number in which that component is first introduced, such that the same reference number is used throughout to refer to an identical component which appears in multiple Figures. Signals and connections may be referred to by the same reference number or label, and the actual meaning will be clear from its use in the context of the description.  
     Apparatus for Making and Using Test Verbs  
      Conventional automated testing systems typically require the creation of different code for testing each different hardware and operating-system platform on which a system-under-test may be executed. Further, if the system-under-test is developed in multiple languages, code must be created for each language to ensure complete testing coverage. In contrast, the present invention allows for the creation of reusable code for testing a system that is deployable on one or more platforms in one or more languages.  
       FIG. 1  shows a system  100 , according to the present invention, for automated testing of an information-processing system  99 . In various embodiments, information-processing system  99  includes a device controlled by an internal microprocessor or other digital circuit, such as a handheld computing device (e.g., a personal data assistant or “PDA”), a cellular phone, an interactive television system, a personal computer, an enterprise-class computing system such as a mainframe computer, a medical device such as a cardiac monitor, or a household appliance having a “smart” controller.  
      In some embodiments, system  100  includes a testing host device  110  having a memory  120  storing a test program  121 , a set of test commands  122 , test verb definitions  124 , an automated testing tool  126 , and a result log  129 . Within test program  121  is a comparator  123  that compares the result signals returned from a system-under-test with the expected results for the test. The comparator  123  generates a test result based on this comparison. In some embodiments, system  100  includes a database  170  coupled to system  110  by connector  172 .  
      In various embodiments, database  170  includes a relational database management system, a hierarchical database management system, or a document management system. In various embodiments, connector  172  includes a wired local area network (LAN) connection, a wireless LAN connection, or a wide area network connection (WAN).  
      In some embodiments, testing host device  110  also includes a storage  150 , an output port  130 , and an input port  140 . In some embodiments, system  100  also includes a removable media  160  and a media reader  165  used in testing host device  110 .  
      Each test verb definition  125  is an encapsulated macro that a test verb programmer creates to perform a specific task. The set of test verb definitions  124  are created in the test-command syntax required by test program  126 . Each test verb definition  125  includes one or more test commands  122 . In some embodiments, test program  126  is an automated testing tool, such as TestQuest Pro™ (available from TestQuest Inc. of Chanhassen, Minn.), for testing information-processing  99  systems. One such system is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,740,352 to Philipp et al. Test verbs  124  are then included in a predetermined order in a test program  121  for testing a system-under-test  99 .  
      In some embodiments, a test verb  125 , stored in memory  120 , is used for determining whether to reject a manufactured part based on analysis of test results from system-under-test  99 . In some embodiments, the test verb  125  used for determining whether to reject a manufactured part requires the input of an acceptable variation tolerance for the test performed.  
      An example embodiment of a test program  121  implementing the test verb  125  used for determining whether to reject a manufactured part  99  includes test verbs performing multiple tasks. These tasks include testing the manufactured part  99  by executing  181  a stimulation command  127 , executing  182  a result-checking command  128 , comparing  183  the test result with the acceptable variation tolerance with comparator  123  to determine  185  whether to reject the manufactured part  99 , and logging  184  the result in result log  129 . In various embodiments, acceptable variation tolerances for manufactured parts are stored in a location such as memory  120 , database  170 , storage  150 , and removable media  160 .  
      In some embodiments, a test verb  125 , stored in memory  120 , is used for determining the location of a graphical user interface object displayed on a display of a system-under-test  99 . In some embodiments, test verb  125  used for determining the location of a graphical user interface object requires the input of a bitmap file and indicators specifying a region of the graphical user interface to search for the graphical user interface object. In some embodiments, test verb  125  used for determining the location of a graphical user interface object returns a boolean value signifying whether the graphical user interface object exists on the graphical user interface. In another embodiment, test verb  125  used for determining the location of a graphical user interface object returns the location on the graphical user interface of the graphical user interface object and the selected status of the graphical user interface object (e.g., selected or not selected). In various embodiments, graphical user interface objects to be located are stored in locations including memory  120 , database  170 , storage  150 , and removable media  160 .  
      In one embodiment of a test program  121 , a test verb  125  used for determining the location of a graphical user interface object is defined narrowly to leverage test verbs  125  created for more common testing tasks (e.g., log result  184 ). In one such embodiment, a test program is created to perform a testing task that requires the determination of the location of a graphical user interface object. In this embodiment, test verbs  125  are used to capture  187  the image displayed on a graphical user interface of a system-under-test  99 , process  188  the captured image to create a bitmap file (BMP), gather  189  inputs for other test verbs  125  (e.g., the graphical user interface object to be located, a region to search for the graphical user interface object, . . . ), locate  190  the graphical user interface object, log  184  the result, and output  191  the location of the graphical user interface object either to the next test verb  192  in a test program  121  or to an output device  199  of a system  100 .  
      In some embodiments, a test verb  125 , stored in memory  120 , is used for comparing an audio output from system-under-test  99  with an expected output. In various embodiments, the expected audio output is an audio file stored in storage  150 , database  170 , or removable media  160 . In some embodiments, test verb  125  requires the input of an expected audio output file and the audio output of system-under-test  99 . In some embodiments, the test verb  125  used for comparing an audio output of system-under-test  99  with an expected audio output returns a boolean indication of a match between the expected and actual audio outputs.  
      In one embodiment, testing host device  110  is used to test an information-processing system  99  that is external to testing host device  110 . In such an embodiment, system-under-test  99  is coupled to output port  130  via connector  132  and input port  140  via connector  142 . Test program  121  is then run on test host device  110 . The test command definitions  122  send stimulus commands  127  and provide result-checking commands  128  to check for test failure on system-under-test  99 . In one embodiment, upon completion of a test, an entry is made in result log  129 . In another embodiment, upon completion of a test, the results are sent to output device  199 . In some embodiments, output device  199  includes a CRT monitor, a printer, or an audio-output device such as a sound card. In some embodiments, upon completion of a test, the results are sent to an output device  199  and/or to the log file  129 .  
      In various embodiments, connectors  132  and  142  include VGA or S-video cables. In other embodiments, connectors  132  and  142  include coaxial, serial, category  5   e , universal serial bus (USB), or custom cables specific for a certain system-under-test  199 .  
      In one embodiment, result log  129  is an ASCII text file. In another embodiment, result log  129  is an extensible markup language (XML) file that facilitates entry of the log data into a database by providing various identification or categorization tags on each result. In some embodiments, log file  129  is created in memory  120 , but in other embodiments log file  129  is stored in storage  150  or on removable media  160 . In some embodiments, result log  129  is stored in database  170 .  
      In another embodiment, shown in  FIG. 4 , testing host device  410  is used to test an information-processing system  99  that is internal to testing host device  410 . In such an embodiment, system-under-test  99  is stored in memory  420  and executed on testing host device  410 . All relevant input operations to, and output operations from, system-under-test  99  are handled within testing host device  410 . In some embodiments, testing host device  410  holds a database  470  in memory.  
     Method for Making and Using Test Verbs  
      As shown in  FIG. 2 , one aspect of the present invention provides a computerized method  200  for testing functions of an information-processing system. Method  200  includes providing  212  an architecture having a set of test commands, the test commands including a set of one or more stimulation commands  232  and a set of one or more result-testing commands  234 , and defining  214  a set of test verbs out of combinations of the test commands  212 . This allows the test programmer to define an overall test program  216  that uses the test verbs  214  in writing a test program  216  that specifies an overall function that will extensively test an information-processing system. The methods further include executing  220  a program that includes one or more test verb instructions  214  and outputting  250  a result of the program.  
      In some embodiments, computerized method  200  is implemented by coding instructions on a computer-readable media  160  (see  FIG. 1 ) that when executed on a testing host device, executes computerized method  200 .  
      In some embodiments, the executing program further includes logging  242  results of the program execution. In some embodiments, logging  242  of activities and results is performed in an ASCII text file. In another embodiment, logging  242  of activities and results is performed in an extensible markup language file that facilitates entry of log data into a database by providing various identification and categorization tags on each result.  
      In some embodiments, the method  200  further includes accepting  262  or rejecting  264  a manufactured part as a result of analyzing  244  results of the execution of the test program. In some embodiments, in order to determine whether to accept or reject a manufactured part, the test verb definitions  214  and test program  216  are created with acceptable tolerances, or access to acceptable tolerances, for the quality or performance of the manufactured part. In some embodiments, the test program  216  is executed  220  by stimulating  232  the manufactured part, testing  234  the result of the stimulus  232 , analyzing  244  the result by checking  260  the result against acceptable tolerances to determine whether to accept  262  the part or to reject  264  it. In some embodiments, test program  214  can make adjustments  270  to the manufacturing process used to make the product and/or to the design of the product itself.  
      The computerized method  200  of  FIG. 2  for testing functions of an information-processing system is continued on  FIG. 3  as method  300 .  
      In some embodiments, method  300  includes a process for locating  312  a graphical user interface object on the display of a system-under-test. In some embodiments, locating  312  a graphical user interface object is accomplished by providing test program  216  a graphical user interface object definition  310  which is used to compare against objects found on the graphical user interface until a match is found. In various embodiments, a graphical user interface object definition  310  includes information that enables an information-processing system implementing method  300  to locate a graphical user interface object such as the coordinates corresponding to a region of the graphical user interface to search, a bitmap file, or a color. In various embodiments, the output  314  of the process for locating  312  a graphical user interface object returns varying types of information about the graphical user interface object such as coordinates specifying the location of the graphical user interface object, a boolean result specifying whether the graphical user interface object exists, or a status of the graphical user interface object such as whether or not the graphical user interface object is currently selected.  
      Another embodiment of the process for locating  312  a graphical user interface object on the display of a system-under-test is shown in  FIG. 9 . This embodiment includes the steps of processing  930  a captured image of a cellular phone graphical user interface  920 , gathering  940  inputs for further processing, locating  950  the graphical user interface object to be located  993 , and returning  970  the location of the graphical user interface object  993 .  
      The step of processing  930  the captured image of a cellular phone graphical user interface  910  includes capturing  932  a graphical user interface image  910  from the system-under-test and converting  934  the image to a bitmap file (BMP). The bitmap file of the graphical user interface is then passed  936  to the gathering inputs step  940 .  
      The gathering inputs step  940  includes maintaining  942  an instance of the bitmap file of the graphical user interface, selecting  944  the graphical user interface object to be located file  990  location from a relational database management system  980 , selecting  946  the region to search within the bitmap file of the graphical user interface from the relational database management system  980 , and opening  948  the file  990  containing the graphical user interface object to be located  993 . A reference to the instance of the bitmap file of the graphical user interface  910 , a reference to the open file  990  of the graphical user interface object  993  to be located, and the region to search for the graphical user interface object  993  on the image of the graphical user interface of the system-under-test are then passed  949  to the step for locating  950  the graphical user interface object  993 .  
      Step  950  for locating the graphical user interface object  993  includes comparing  952  the graphical user interface image of the system-under-test with the file  990  of the graphical user interface object  993  to be located in order to find matches. If the graphical user interface object  993  is located, the step  950  outputs  960  the coordinates of the graphical user interface object  993  within the graphical user interface  910  of the system-under-test and writes  962  a success message to a log. If the graphical user interface object  993  is not located, the step  950  writes  956  the graphical user interface image  910  file of the system-under-test to storage, writes  957  a failure message to the log including the location of the graphical user interface image  910  file of the system-under-test in storage, and outputs  958  null values for the location of the graphical user interface object  993 .  
      Further embodiments of method  300  include a process for locating  322  text strings  320  on a graphical user interface. In some embodiments, the process of locating  322  text strings  320  on a graphical user interface includes taking  323  a snapshot of the graphical user interface and creating  324  a bitmap, processing  325  the bitmap image to derive text, locating  326  the text input  320  to the process  322 , and converting  327  the text location back to graphical user interface coordinates. In various embodiments, the output  328  of the process  322  of locating text strings  320  on a graphical user interface returns varying types of information about the text string  320  such as the font, the font size, the coordinates specifying the location of the text  320  on the graphical user interface, the color of the text  320 , the number of times the text  320  was located on the graphical user interface, or a boolean result indicating whether the text  320  was located on the graphical user interface.  
      In some embodiments, method  300  includes a process  332  for comparing an expected audio output definition  330  with the output of a system-under-test. In various embodiments, the input  330  to the process  332  for comparing an expected audio output definition  330  with the actual output of a system-under-test includes information such as frequency, wave pattern, volume, or duration of the sound. In some embodiments, the output  334  of process  332  includes information about the audio output from the system-under-test. In one such embodiment, the output  334  of process  332  is a boolean value indicating whether process  332  made a match between the expected audio output  330  with the system-under-test audio output.  
      In some embodiments, method  300  includes a process for translating  346  a primary language input  342  to a target language  344  output  348 . Translation process  346  is used when a system-under-test requires testing in multiple languages. In some embodiments, the translation process  346  requires inputs  340 . In some embodiments, inputs  340  include a primary language word identifier  342  and a target language  344 . In some embodiments, translation process  346  uses the primary language identifier  342  input and the target language  344  to select  346  the desired language equivalent  348  from a relational database management system table.  
      In some embodiments, translation process  346  operates using a relational database management system to store the primary language  342  and target language equivalents  348 . In some embodiments, as shown is  FIG. 6 , database table  600  named “tvt_infrastructure”  608  includes columns  602  and rows  604 . In this embodiment, there are columns text_english  630  and text_french  640  that in row  606  hold the values of “Adapters”  632  as the English word and “Connections”  642  as the French equivalent. Table  600  operates for the translation process  346  by selecting  346  a row  604  based on specific values in columns  602  including the value in column text_english  630 . In one such embodiment, an example of a structured query language (SQL) statement used to select  346  a target language equivalent  348  of a primary language text string  342  in a typical relational database management system is:  
                                                  SELECT text_french            FROM tvt_infrastructure            WHERE screen = “MAIN” AND             objectname = “ICO_ADAPTOR” AND             text_english = “Adapters”;                      
 
 Such a SQL statement will return a value of “Connections”  642  as the French translation of the English text string “Adapters”  632 . This embodiment uses database table  600  that also includes other types of information in a row  604  for other purposes. However, as shown in  FIG. 7 , another embodiment for translating  346  a primary language text string  342  into a target language equivalent  348  uses a table  700  that is for language translation  346  purposes only. 
 
      In other embodiments, translation process  346  operates using a relational database management system to store the primary language  342  and target language equivalents  348 . As shown in  FIG. 7 , database table  700 , named tvt_translation  708 , has columns  702  named English  710 , French  720 , Spanish  730 , and German  740  and rows  704  holding text strings of equivalent meaning in the language of their respective columns. In one such embodiment, an example of a structured query language (SQL) statement used to select  346  a target language equivalent  348  of a primary language text string  342  in a typical relational database management system is:  
                                                  SELECT german           FROM tvt_infrastructure           WHERE spanish = “Archivo”;                      
 
 Such a SQL statement will return a value of “Akte”  742  as the German translation  346  of the Spanish text string “Archivo”  732 . 
 
      In one such embodiment, the system-under-test is a washing machine, developed with English as the primary language. However, the washing machine must also be able to display text on its LCD display in French and Spanish. In such embodiments, when a process is encountered that requires testing of graphical user interface text displayed on the LCD, any text strings that are displayed in English when the washing machine is operating in its primary language are sent to process  346  for translation into the target language  344  of French or Spanish.  
      In some embodiments, underlying a system for automated testing of an information-processing system is a flexible, layered architecture  500 , as shown in  FIG. 5 , that allows such a system to operate on many different devices and operating-system platforms and in many different languages. In some embodiments, the flexible, layered architecture  500  includes a test verb layer  510 , a task layer  520 , a platform abstraction layer  530 , a graphical user interface object layer  540 , and a test tool primitive layer  550 .  
      In some embodiments, test verb layer  510  includes the semantic content of the test verbs that define a test vocabulary. In some embodiments, task layer  520  includes test verbs instantiated in memory that are available to an automated test program during execution. In some embodiments, the platform abstraction layer  530  handles test verb command handling differences when test verbs are executed or performed on different platforms that have different execution, processing, stimulation, or language requirements. In some embodiments, graphical user interface object layer  540  handles graphical user interface object differences between systems-under-test such as color display, monochrome display, display size, display resolution, or language. In some embodiments, the test tool primitive layer  550  includes the application programming interface (API) of the test tool used along with a test verb implementation such as the HLF application programming interface available within TestQuest Pro.  
      In some embodiments, the flexible, layered architecture  500  allows communication between the infrastructure layers and with additional ancillary components of the computerized system embodied in  FIG. 1 . In some embodiments, test verb layer  510  includes semantic content that accesses test data  514  that becomes instantiated in memory in task layer  520 . In some embodiments, task layer  520  communicates with test verb layer  510 , platform abstraction layer  530 , graphical user interface object layer  540 , and test tool primitives layer  550 ; accesses test data  514 ; and handles activity logging  570  and error handling and recovery  580 . In some embodiments, platform abstraction layer  530  communicates with task layer  520  and graphical user interface object layer  540  and handles activity logging  570  and error handling and recovery  580 . In another embodiment, graphical user interface object layer  540  communicates with task layer  520 , platform abstraction layer  530 , and test tool primitives layer  550  and handles activity logging  570  and error handling and recovery  580 .  
      In some embodiments, test verbs are defined by abstracting the function to be tested to a system level, rather than a hardware level, to ensure the reusability of test verbs across platforms. In one such embodiment for a computerized coffee pot, as shown in  FIG. 8 , the test vocabulary for a computerized coffee pot  830  is valid regardless of whether the coffee pot on/off switch is a touch panel interface or an electromechanical switch. In this embodiment, all of the test verb definitions  825  for testing a computerized coffee pot are created at a level that allows for a test program using these test verbs  825  to be reused from one type of coffee pot to the next. In such an embodiment, the hardware specifics for test verbs are handled in the platform abstraction and graphical user interface object layers. Both example test vocabularies shown in  FIG. 8  are oriented to the operations performed not the hardware specifics of the platform. In these embodiments, the flexible, layered architecture shown in  FIG. 5 , and described above, allows this platform independence.  
     Wireless Test Verb Architecture  
      1 Overview  
      The following exemplary architecture provides a list of some test verbs embodiments for a generic phone implementation of test verb technology (TVT) along with providing possible parameter information and usage explanations for the test verbs.  
      2 Abbreviations Acronyms &amp; Definitions  
     
         
          ATS Automated Test Solution  
          ATC Automated Test Case (the script that automates the test case)  
          GUI Graphical User Interface  
          TQPro TestQuest Pro system  
          TED Test Execution Driver  
          Test Case The basic test unit that reports a pass/fail status  
          Test Verb ATC statements that implement common testing activities.  
          TV Test Verb  
          Test Session The running of a sequence of ATC&#39;s  
          SUT System Under Test 
 
 3 Test Verbs High-Level Specification 
 
       
    
      The table below shows the test verb embodiments that are described herein. This is intended to be an illustrative list of some embodiments of wireless test verb technology. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of embodiments. Many other embodiments will be apparent to those of skill in the art upon reviewing the information disclosed herein.  
      The various TV are categorized as to usage. Parameterization, implementation details and general design guidelines for each TV are treated in later sections.  
                                                   TV List   Parameters                          GENERIC TEST VERBS               FOR_EACH   prt, arr           FOR_EACH_IF   ptr, arr, expr           REMARK   sz           SKIP_TESTCASE   sz           KNOWN_TO_FAIL   sz           KNOWN_TO_FAIL_BUG   sz           DELAY   time           NOT   (another TV)           NAVIGATION TEST VERBS           NAVIGATE_HOME   NULL           NAVIGATE_TO_SCREEN   sz           VERIFICATION TEST VERBS           VERIFY_CHOICE_ITEMS   list           VERIFY_CHOICE_ITEMS_SELECTED   list           VERIFY_INCOMING_CALL   timeout           VERIFY_TEXT   sz           VERIFY_TEXT_SELECTED   sz           READ_TEXT   buf           VERIFY_OBJECT   sz           WAIT FOR TEST VERBS           WAIT_FOR_TEXT   sz, timeout           WAIT_FOR_OBJECT   sz, timeout           CURSOR TEST VERBS           CHECK_CURSOR_BLINK   x, y           CURSOR_MUST_NOT_EXIST   x, y           MENU ITEM SELECTION TEST VERBS           SELECT_MENU_ITEM   sz           PHONE RELATED TEST VERBS           SET_POWER   ival           POWER_CYCLE_PHONE   NULL           RESET_AUDIO   NULL           DISCONNECT_BATTERY   NULL           CONNECT_BATTERY   NULL           UNLOCK_PHONE   NULL           LOCK_PHONE   NULL           LOG_PHONE_CONFIGURATION   NULL           SET_OBJECT   Sz           KEY PRESS TEST VERBS           DIAL_NUMBER   sz           SEND_STRING   sz           PRESS_KEYS   sz           HOLD_KEY   sz           RELEASE_KEY   sz                      
 
 4 Test Verbs Detail 
 
      The table below shows some embodiments of the test verbs that are described herein. The various test verbs are categorized.  
      4.1 Generic Test Verbs  
      This category of TV&#39;s is generally associated with whatever implementation is undertaken. These TV&#39;s are more specific to testing than they are to a particular platform and are used to control, monitor, log and establish control of testing.  
      4.1.1 FOR_EACH(ptr, arr)  
      This test verb is a simplified loop iterator that works in conjunction with special data table format. The two parameters that are passed to this test verb have to following characteristics: 
          ptr—This variable is a pointer to the first record in the named static structure that is the second variable of this test verb.     arr—This variable is the name of the static structure.        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  FOR_EACH(Record,DataTable)           {             DoThis(Record-&gt;Object1);             DoThat(Record-&gt;Object2);             DoThis(OtherParameter);           }                      
 
      This script usage would in general be supported by a static structure that was declared global to the ATC as follows:  
                                                  static struct           {            char * Object1;            int Object2;           }*Record,DataTable[ ] = {             { “One”, 1 },             { “Two”, 2 },             { “Three” 3 }           };                      
 
      4.1.2 FOR_EACH_IF(ptr, arr,expr)  
      This test verb is a slightly more complex loop iterator that works in conjunction with a special data table format, allowing for conditional execution of data table entries. The three parameters that are passed to this test verb have to following characteristics: 
          ptr—This variable is a pointer to the first record in the named static structure that is the second variable of this test verb.     arr—This variable is the name of the static structure.     expr—a condition that can be used for early termination of the for loop        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  FOR_EACH_IF(Record,DataTable,(Record-&gt;Filter = = variable))            {             DoThis(Record-&gt;Object1);             DoThat(Record-&gt;Object2);             Filter = DoThis(OtherParameter);            }                      
 
      This script usage would in general be supported by a static structure that was declared global to the ATC as follows:  
                                                  static struct           {             char * Object1;             int Object2;             int Filter;           }*Record,DataTable[ ] = {               { “One”, 1, 4},               { “Two”, 2, 4},               { “Two” 2, 8}           };                      
 
      4.1.3 REMARK(sz)  
      This TV simply posts a comment to the log.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  REMARK(“Specialized Test Case for SMS messaging”)                      
 
      4.1.4 SKIP_TESTCASE(sz)  
      This TV simply posts comments to the log.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  TEST_CASE_START(“TC DataTable 14”)           {             SKIP_TESTCASE(“The TC requires a BSE, will perform           manually for now”);           }           TEST_CASE_CLEANUP(iStatus)                      
 
      4.1.5 KNOWN_TO_FAIL(sz)  
      This TV simply posts comments to the log and then skips the remainder of the code to go to the test case cleanup.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below: In general, if an ATC is authored, but the script does not yet run for some external reason (that is not a bug), this line can be placed in an appropriate place in the script to ensure the script does not continue to a failure and to continue to note in the log files an area that must be addressed prior to completion.  
      In general, the test engineer would author a complete script, execute the script one time and determine that there was a Bug in the software. At that point, the BUG TV would be inserted typically as the first line of code, to record the fact of the bug to the logfile and skip the remainder of the test. This line of code would be removed upon the bug being corrected so that the test script again executed. It is simply a short-term placeholder of sorts.  
                                                  TEST_CASE_START(“TC DataTable 14”)           {             KNOWN_TO_FAIL(“BSE TV for invalid frequency not             implemented yet.”);             “BUG - 1734 - End Call Softkey not visible during emergency             call”);             MORE_TESTVERBS();             MORE_TESTVERBS();           }           TEST_CASE_CLEANUP(iStatus);                      
 
      4.1.6 KNOWN_TO_FAIL BUG(sz)  
      This TV simply posts comments to the log and then skips the remainder of the code to go to the test case cleanup.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below: In general, the test engineer would author a complete script, execute the script one time and determine that there was a Bug in the software. At that point, the BUG TV would be inserted typically as the first line of code, to record the fact of the bug to the logfile and skip the remainder of the test. This line of code would be removed upon the bug being corrected so that the test script again executed. It is simply a short term placeholder of sorts.  
                                                  TEST_CASE_START(“TC DataTable 14”)           {             KNOWN_TO_FAIL_BUG(““BUG - 1734 - End Call Softkey             not visible during emergency call”);             MORE_TESTVERBS();             MORE_TESTVERBS();           }           TEST_CASE_CLEANUP(iStatus);                      
 
      4.1.7 DELAY(time)  
      This TV simply waits the specified amount of time before releasing control to the next line of code.  
      The parameter that is passed to this TV has the following characteristics: 
          time—an integer string denoting the number of milliseconds to pause.        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  PRESS_KEY(“&lt;Exit&gt;”);           DELAY(1000);           VERIFY_TEXT(“Menu”, STANDARD);                      
 
      4.1.8 NOT(another TV)  
      This TV performs the converse of another TV and takes care of correct logging and error handling. For example, if VERIFY_OBJECT(“aHat”) was used to verify that a bitmap depicting a hat was displayed on the screen, the command shown below would be used to verify that the bitmap was NOT present on the screen.  
      NOT(VERIFY_OBJECT(“aHat”));  
      4.2 Navigation Test Verbs  
      This category of TV&#39;s is platform independent to the extent that it is typically used with a menued UI implementation. It is very platform dependent in it&#39;s implementation, as the characteristics of each platform are accessed by the TV&#39;s.  
      4.2.1 NAVIGATE_HOME(NULL)  
      This TV takes the steps necessary to return the device to its “home” or default screen. This is the screen from which all other navigation takes place. For the navigation in general, there will be a datatable maintained as one sheet of an Excel spreadsheet which will have a unique name for every screen that can be navigated to (including “home”), along with a title, tag or other unique identifier that can be used to verify navigation to that screen and the key sequence (from the home screen) that is required to navigate to that screen. This particular TV will lookup the screen name (likely “home”) on the Excel spreadsheet and execute the associated key sequence and then verify that the navigation to the home screen was successful. For this particular TV, it is likely that the navigation is simply a sequence of END or CLEAR keys. This TV is typically implemented because it is quite frequently used. It could be replaced by the following TV (NAVIGATE_TO_SCREEN(“Home”)).  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  DO_SOMETHING(sz);           VERIFY_SOMETHING(sz);           NAVIGATE_HOME();           DO_SOMETHING_ELSE(sz);           NAVIGATE_TO_SCREEN(“Names Add Number”);           D0_SOMETHING(sz);           CHECK_SOMETHING(sz);                      
 
      This TV is supported by an Excel spreadsheet table that would have the following general format:  
                                                           Screen   English   Spanish   Navigation                          Home   Names   nombre   &lt;End&gt;&lt;End&gt;&lt;Clear&gt;           Names   Add   sumar   Right&gt;&lt;Down&gt;&lt;Down&gt;           Add   Number   numero   &lt;Down&gt;&lt;Down&gt;&lt;Left&gt;           Number                      
 
      4.2.2 NAVIGATE_TO_SCREEN(sz)  
      This TV takes the steps necessary to navigate to the specified screen. A single parameter, which is the screen to which to navigate is passed to this routine. The first action taken within this TV will be to navigate to the Home screen, after which the navigation to the desired screen will take place. The associated Excel spreadsheet contains entries which specify all navigation from the “home” screen.  
      The parameter that is passed to this TV has the following characteristics: 
          sz—a string matching an entry in the navigation table (Excel spreadsheet) discussed in the previous section. 
 
 In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script is shown in the previous paragraph, along with the supporting spreadsheet example. 
       

      4.3 Verification Test Verbs  
      This category of TV&#39;s is used to perform verification activities on the device.  
      4.3.1 VERIFY_CHOICE_ITEMS(list)  
      This TV verifies that a list of choice items supplied by the call exists on the display. It will pass if the items are visible whether they are selected (reverse highlighted or color coded) or not selected. The TV will scroll as necessary to view the complete list. The choice items must be valid screen names from the datatable (Excel spreadsheet mentioned in the previous section).  
                                                  char *aList[10] = {“Unmute”,NULL};              VERIFY_CHOICE_ITEMS(aList);                      
 
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  NAVIGATE_TO_SCREEN(“Names Add Number”);           VERIFY_CHOICE_ITEMS(aList);                      
 
      This script usage would in general be supported by a character array declared within the script, an example of which would be:  
                                                  char *aList[10] = {“General”, “Mobile”, “Home”, “Work”,           “Fax”, NULL};                      
 
      4.3.2 VERIFY_CHOICE_ITEMS_SELECTED(list)  
      This TV verifies that a list of choice items supplied by the call exists on the display, and that the items are in the required order and selected (reverse highlighted or color coded) as the cursor passes over each item. The choice items must be valid screen names from the datatable (Excel spreadsheet mentioned in the previous section).  
                                                  char *aList[10] = {“Unmute”,NULL};              VERIFY_CHOICE_ITEMS(aList);                      
 
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  NAVIGATE_TO_SCREEN(“Names Add Number”);           VERIFY_CHOICE_ITEMS(aList);                      
 
      This script usage would in general be supported by a character array declared within the script, an example of which would be:  
                                                  char *aList[10] = {“General”, “Mobile”, “Home”, “Work”,           “Fax”, NULL);                      
 
      4.3.3 VERIFY_INCOMING_CALL(timeout)  
      This TV will continue to attempt to verify that an incoming call is detected until the specified timeout period is exceeded. Internal to this test verb, it may look for objects, look for text, check LED&#39;s or use whatever method a particular phone requires for verification of an incoming call. 
          timeout—An integer specifying the number of seconds to retry prior to erroring out.        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                  VERIFY_INCOMING_CALL(25);                  
 
      4.3.4 VERIFY_TEXT(sz)  
      This TV verifies that the specified text in the fonts declared in the font tables appears on the display. The parameters passed to this TV has the following format: 
          sz—A string specifying the text string that should appear on the display        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  VERIFY_TEXT(“John Smith”);           VERIFY_TEXT(“123 Main Street”);                      
 
      The fonts that are searched for this test verb can be any of those specifically listed in the platform font table. The search region is the default search region set in the platform layer.  
      If a specific font or a specific search region must be verified, the _EXT TV must be developed as discussed in section 5.  
      4.3.5 VERIFY_TEXT_SELECTED(sz)  
      This TV verifies that the specified text. The parameter passed to this TV has the following format: 
          sz—A string specifying the text string that should appear on the display        

      This TV can be thought to be the opposite of the VERIFY_TEXT TV, as for monochrome screens, typically a single routine is used for this with the foreground and background just reversed. In other instances, the same TV code is used, with a simple if statement that switches the search flow based on foreground/background requirements.  
      The script usage and supporting data are the same as the previous TV.  
      4.3.6 READ_TEXT(buf)  
      This TV is typically only used in an _EXT format (as described below). It reads the screen for the data and returns that information found. 
          buf—a character buffer to which the return data should be written.        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  NAVIGATE_TO_SCREEN(“ESN”);           READ_TEXT(szText);           //Attempt to modify ESN           SEND_KEYS(“&lt;Delete&gt;&lt;Clear&gt;”);           PRESS_KEYS(“1234”);           VERIFY_TEXT(szText);                      
 
      The above usage shows a general read text, which could be used to cycle through the entire screen and a pattern of different fonts, which in many cases is not practical, thus the typical usage of this as a _EXT verb.  
      4.3.7 VERIFY_OBJECT(sz)  
      This TV verifies the characteristics associated with anything that can be deemed an object. Object types include Icons, Softkeys, Images, Tones, LED&#39;s, etc. The string that is passed to this routine contains a key that is used internal to the routine to determine the object type. This in turn leads to the area of the Excel spreadsheet that is used to gather the object characteristics relative to each object type verification. 
          sz—a string denoting object type and object name        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  NAVIGATE_TO_SCREEN(“ESN”);           VERIFY_OBJECT(“IC_ConnectedIcon”);           VERIFY_OBJECT(“SK_Menu”);                      
 
      This test verb would be supported for the above usage by two different sheets in the Excel file. One which contains the Icons and their associated properties and one the contains the SoftKeys and their associated properties. In the first case above, the lookup would be performed against the Icon sheet because of the “IC_” prefix in the second case, the lookup is against the SoftKey sheet (“SK_” prefix). The associated tables in Excel for each case would take a form such as follows;  
                              Icon Properties Data Sheet                                 ICON   Bitmap   Region                       ConnectedIcon   ConnectedIcon.bmp   0, 0, 100, 20                      
 
     
       
         
           
               
            
               
                   
               
               
                   
               
               
                 SoftKey Properties Data Sheet 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Key Name 
                 Font 
                 Foreground 
                 Background 
                 Reqion 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Menu 
                 Courier.fnt 
                 Black 
                 White 
                 0, 0, 20, 20 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
      4.4 WaitFor Test Verbs  
      This category of is used to provide the capability to wait a specified amount of time for an event to occur and declare an error if the event does not occur in the specified timeframe.  
      4.4.1 WAIT_FOR_TEXT(sz, timeout)  
      This TV has the identical form to VERIFY_TEXT, where the first parameter specifies the text. The difference is that instead of the immediate check performed by VERIFY_TEXT, this TV will continue to retry the verification activity until a specified timeout period is elapsed. 
          sz—A string specifying the text string that should appear on the display     Timeout—The time in seconds to continue to retry the verification activity before declaring an error.        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  SET_POWER(ON);           WAIT_FOR_TEXT(“Searching for Service”, 10);                      
 
      4.4.2 WAIT_FOR_OBJECT(sz, timeout)  
      This TV has the identical form to VERIFY_OBJECT, where the first parameter specifies the object. The difference is that instead of the immediate check performed by VERIFY_OBJECT, this TV will continue to retry the verification activity until a specified timeout period is elapsed. 
          sz—a string denoting object type and object name     Timeout—The time in seconds to continue to retry the verification activity before declaring an error.        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  PRESS_KEY(“&lt;Talk&gt;”);           WAIT_FOR_OJBECT(“IC_Phone”, 3);                      
 
      4.5 Cursor Test Verbs  
      This category of TV&#39;s is used to perform various operations with the cursor.  
      4.5.1 CHECK_CURSOR_BLINK(x,y)  
      This test verb verifies that the cursor is blinking at the specified location. The location must be expressed in X and Y coordinates, and is typically found in the Excel Spreadsheet.  
      The parameters for the TV are as follows: 
          x—The x location to search for the cursor     y—The y location to search for the cursor        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  CHECK_CURSOR_BLINK(FirstLineStart);           PRESS_KEY(“&lt;Down&gt;”);           CHECK_CUROR_BLINK(SecondLineStart);           CURSOR_MUST_NOT_EXIST(FirstLineStart);                      
 
 Where FirstLineStart is an x, y pair that is retrieved from the Excel Spreadsheet. 
 
      4.5.2 CURSOR_MUST_NOT_EXIST(x,y)  
      This test verb verifies that the cursor does not exist at the specified location. The location must be expressed in X and Y coordinates, and is typically found in the Excel Spreadsheet.  
      The parameters for the TV are as follows: 
          x—The x location to search for the cursor     y—The y location to search for the cursor 
 
 In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown in the above paragraph: 
       

      4.6 Menu Item Selection Test Verbs  
      This TV is used to perform menu selection.  
      4.6.1 SELECT_MENU_ITEM(sz)  
      This test verb selects a particular menu item.  
      The parameters for the TV are as follows: 
          sz—The string to select        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  NAVIGATE_TO_SCREEN(“Calls”);           SELECT_MENU_ITEM(“Dialed”);           PRESS_KEY(“&lt;Select&gt;”);                      
 
      4.7 Phone Related Test Verbs  
      This category of TV&#39;s is related to specific phone actions.  
      4.7.1 SET_POWER(ival)  
      This TV sets the power of the phone to a specified state.  
      The parameter for the TV is as follows: 
          ival—Either ON or OFF        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  SET_POWER(ON);           WAIT_FOR_TEXT(“Connected”, STANDARD);                      
 
      4.7.2 POWER_CYCLE_PHONE(NULL)  
      This TV powers off the phone and then powers on the phone.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  POWER_CYCLE_PHONE( );           WAIT_FOR_TEXT(“Connected”, STANDARD);                      
 
      4.7.3 RESET_AUDIO(NULL)  
      This TV resets the audio detection circuitry of the test station (if so equipped). This TV is typically used in conjunction with a VERIFY_OBJECT call.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  RESET_AUDIO( );           DO_SOMETHING( );           VERIFY_OBJECT(“AUDIO_RingToneOn”);                      
 
      4.7.4 DISCONNECT_BATTERY(NULL)  
      This TV disconnects the battery from the phone.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  SELECT_MENU_ITEM(“Spanish”,5);           DISCONNECT_BATTERY( );           CONNECT_BATTERY( );           SET_LANGUAGE(“Spanish”);           WAIT_FOR_TEXT(“Connected”, STANDARD);                      
 
      In this case, Spanish is the language selected from a menu item selection. The battery is then disconnected and reconnected and it is then verified that the language selection remains Spanish. The SET_LANGUAGE TV is the key to the various routines that the lookup table in the Excel spreadsheet is to be used to find the translation of the “Connected” phrase in the Spanish language and that is the verification item.  
      4.7.5 CONNECT_BATTERY(NULL)  
      This TV reconnects the battery to the phone.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown above:  
      4.7.6 UNLOCK_PHONE(NULL)  
      This TV unlocks the phone.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  LOCK_PHONE( );           SELECT_MENU_ITEM(“Dial);           WAIT_FOR_TEXT(“Enter Lock Code”, STANDARD);           UNLOCK_PHONE( );                      
 
      4.7.7 LOCK_PHONE(NULL)  
      This TV unlocks the phone.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown above:  
      4.7.8 LOG_PHONE_CONFIGURATION(NULL)  
      This TV logs various information about the phone, the TV is somewhat dependent on the particular phone that is used and what information is desired to be logged when this TV is selected. Typically the TV will navigate to various menus and read information from the screen such as the software version, browser version, ESN, etc.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                  LOG_PHONE_CONFIGURATION( );                  
 
      4.7.9 SET_OBJECT(sz)  
      This TV is used to act upon input objects with characteristics defined in the spreadsheet. Objects can include strings of text, numeric strings, discretes, audio, etc. The string passed to the TV indexes into a table in the spreadsheet which can contain a column or columns that are used internal to the implementation to determine the actions associated with the particular object.  
      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below  
                                  SET_OBJECT(“AnswerCall”);                  
 
      In the case above, the actions necessary to answer a call on a particular phone (keypress, keypresses, touchpad, etc.) would be performed when this command is utilized.  
      Allowable Input Parameters for this TV are:  
     
         
         
           
              AnswerCall—Must perform actions necessary to answer a call to the mobile.  
              EndCall—Mustperform the actions necessary to terminate a call to the mobile.  
           
         
       
    
      4.8 Key Press Test Verbs  
      This category of TV&#39;s is used to stimulate the keypad of the phone and input either text or numerics dependent on selection.  
      4.8.1 DIAL_NUMBER(sz)  
      This TV sends the specified numeric sequence to the phone, and hits the key necessary to “send” the numeric string to the network.  
      The parameter for the TV is as follows: 
          sz—String specifying the number to be sent to the phone        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                  DIAL_NUMBER(“5551212”);                  
 
      4.8.2 SEND_STRING(sz)  
      This TV set the specified sequence of keys to the phone.  
      The parameter for the TV is as follows: 
          sz—String specifying the keys to be sent        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                  SEND_STRING(“Alpha123”);                  
 
      Within the TV, the determination is made of what keys to strike and how many times to strike the key to obtain the desired sequence, which can be alpha, or alpha and numeric. If the current screen is not a text entry screen, the multiple key strikes to obtain the specified alpha character could be represented as multiple instances of the same number. The TV contains the intelligence to wait the required time between keystrokes to ensure the proper string is obtained when on an alpha entry screen.  
      4.8.3 PRESS_KEYS(sz)  
      This TV will use the Excel Spreadsheet to perform a lookup of the specified key and press it. It is typically used to specify a named softkey for pressing via looking up what key activates that particular softkey, or to simply press a sequence of keys a single time.  
      The parameter for the TV is as follows: 
          sz—String specifying the key(s) to be pressed        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  PRESS_KEYS(“&lt;Select&gt;”);           PRESS_KEYS(“12345”);                      
 
      This TV in the first case above is supported by a sheet in the data file that specifies the associated key to press.  
      4.8.4 HOLD_KEY(sz)  
      This TV is used to press a specified key without releasing it.  
      The parameters for the TV are as follows: 
          sz—key to be pressed        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  HOLD_KEY(“1”);           DELAY(“5000”);           RELEASE_KEY(“1”);                      
 
      4.8.5 RELEASE_KEY(sz)  
      This TV is used to release a specified key=t.  
      The parameters for the TV are as follows: 
          sz—key to be pressed        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown above.  
      EXT Test Verbs  
      A certain category of test verbs is quite often required, that being an extended test verb and is denoted by a suffix of _EXT to one of the TV&#39;s defined in the previous section. The typical list of TV&#39;s that would have the EXT suffix would be as follows:  
                                                  VERIFY_TEXT           VERIFY_TEXT_SELECTED           VERIFY_TEXT_DOES_NOT_EXIST           READ_TEXT           WAIT_FOR_TEXT                      
 
      These TV&#39;s typically will get the _EXT suffix to specifically denote font and search region characteristics. One example (VERIFY_TEXT) will be shown below. The others follow the same format.  
      VERIFY_TEXT_EXT(sz, font, region)  
      This TV verifies that the specified text in the specified font in the specified region appears on the screen. The parameters passed to this TV has the following format: 
          sz—A string specifying the text string that should appear on the display     font—a font, either defined or specified     a particular search region, often contained in the data table        

      In some embodiments, the general usage of this test verb within the script would be as shown below:  
                                                  VERIFY_TEXT_EXT(“John Smith”, LARGE_FONT,           NAME_REGION);                      
 
     Conclusion  
      As shown in  FIG. 2 , one aspect of the present invention provides a computerized method  200  for testing, from a host computer, a function of a wireless information-processing device. Method  200  provides an architecture having a set of test commands  212 , the test commands  212  including a set of one or more stimulation commands  232  and a set of one or more result-testing commands  234  and defining a set of wireless test verbs from combinations of the test commands  212 . This allows the test programmer to define an overall test program  216  that uses the wireless test verbs  214  in writing a test program  216  that specifies an overall function that will extensively test a wireless information processing device-under-test  99 . The method further includes executing  220  a program that includes a plurality of wireless test verb instructions  214  and outputting  250  a result of the program  216 . The method  200 , further includes executing one or more test programs  216  on the host test computer.  
      In some embodiments, the wireless information processing device tested by an executing method  200  is a wireless telephone. In some other embodiments, the wireless information processing device tested by an executing method  200  is a personal data assistant (PDA).  
      In various embodiments, the stimulating  232  of method  200  includes a dialing test for performance on a wireless telephone when the method  200  is executed. In some embodiments, the receiving of a method  200  embodiment includes receiving a ringing signal.  
      In some embodiments of method  200 , the test verbs  214  include test verbs  214  for stimulating  232  a wireless personal data assistant (PDA). In some other embodiments of method  200 , the test verbs  214  include test verbs  214  for stimulating  232  a wireless phone.  
      In some embodiments, the method  200  further includes connecting the wireless information-processing device to one or more networks. In various method  200  embodiments, the one or more networks the wireless information-processing device can be connected to include a local area network, a wide area network, the internet, a telephone network, and a peer-to-peer network.  
      In various embodiments of method  200 , the test verbs  214  include test verbs  214  defined to perform tasks that include looping, looping until certain criteria is met, posting remarks to an execution log, skipping steps in a test sequence in various ways, pausing test program or session execution for a specified period of time, and testing for an inverse result another test verb is intended to test for (see “NOT” test verb described above).  
      Other aspects of some embodiments of the method  200  include test verbs  214  for navigating through a graphical user interface of a wireless information-processing device, verifying the existence of specified items in a displayed list, verifying the existence and order of specified items in a displayed list, waiting for and verifying an incoming telephone call, and verifying that specified text is displayed and in the proper font. Some other embodiments of the method  200  include test verbs  214  for verifying that specified text is selected, reading displayed text, verifying the characteristics associated with a displayed object, waiting for certain events to occur, waiting for a specified event to occur, checking if a cursor is blinking, and checking if a cursor exists. Further, some embodiments of a method  200  include test verbs  214  for determining the existence of static, blinking, and moving pixel patterns.  
      Some method  200  embodiments include test verbs  214  for selecting menu items, setting power options, cycling power settings, manipulating audio options, connecting and disconnecting a power source, locking and unlocking a device, logging configuration settings, and acting upon input objects. In some further embodiments, method  200  includes test verbs  214  for dialing phone numbers, entering text strings, simulating pressing of keys and buttons, simulating the holding of keys and buttons for a specified duration, simulating the release of keys and buttons  
      In some embodiments, the method  200  also includes wireless test verbs  214  for causing numeric, alphanumeric, and iconic data to be entered into the wireless information-processing device includes simulating key-presses, spoken words, and handwriting strokes.  
      Another aspect of the present invention, shown in  FIG. 1 , provides a computer readable media  160  having a instructions coded thereon for causing a suitably configured information handling system  110  to perform tests on a wireless information-processing device  99 .  
      Yet another aspect of the present invention, again shown in  FIG. 1 , provides a computerized system  110  for testing a function of an information-processing system  99 . The system includes a memory  120 , an automated test tool  126 , a set of test commands  122  stored in the memory  120 , wherein each one of the test commands  122  includes a set of one or more stimulation commands  127  and a set of one or more result-testing commands  128 . The system also includes individual wireless test verb definitions  125  stored in the memory  120  that defines a set of wireless test verbs  124  out of combinations of the test commands  122 . A programmer then generates a wireless test program  121  stored in the memory  120  that includes a plurality of wireless test verb instructions  125 . The system also includes a comparator  123  that generates test results based on a comparison of test result signals to desired result values. The system also includes an output port  130  that drives stimulation signals  132  based on the execution of the test program  121 , an input port  140  that receives result signals  142  based on behavior of a system-under-test  99 , and an output device  199  that presents a result of the test program  121 . The system also includes an output device  199  for presenting the test results of a test program  121 .  
      In some embodiments, the computerized system  110  is configured for testing wireless information processing devices including wireless telephones and personal digital assistants (PDA).  
      It is understood that the above description is intended to be illustrative, and not restrictive. Many other embodiments will be apparent to those of skill in the art upon reviewing the above description. The scope of the invention should, therefore, be determined with reference to the appended claims, along with the full scope of equivalents to which such claims are entitled.