Patent Publication Number: US-2023153230-A1

Title: Operation verifying apparatus, operation verifying method and operation verifying system

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This application is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/410,185, filed on May 13, 2019, which is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/167,113, filed on May 27, 2016, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,346,288, which is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/067,009, filed on May 2, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,495,280, which is a continuation application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a), of International Application PCT/JP2010/000722, filed Feb. 5, 2010, which claimed priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-083198 filed Mar. 30, 2009, Japanese Patent Application No. 2010-024648 filed Feb. 5, 2010, Japanese Patent Application No. 2010-024649 filed Feb. 5, 2010, Japanese Patent Application No. 2010-024650 filed Feb. 5, 2010, Japanese Patent Application No. 2010-024651 filed Feb. 5, 2010, Japanese Patent Application No. 2010-024652 filed Feb. 5, 2010 and Japanese Patent Application No. 2010-024647 filed Feb. 5, 2010 in the Japanese Intellectual Property Office, the disclosures of which are hereby incorporated by reference. 
    
    
     TECHNICAL FIELD 
     The present invention relates to a technique used to test the operation of a product. 
     BACKGROUND ART 
     Performing an operation test on products before the delivery of the products is indispensable for guaranteeing the product quality thereof. Generally and in many occasions, test engineers manually operate on a product, and the operation test is executed by verifying the operational result. Yet, much effort is involved in manually performing the operation test on a multifunctional product having a plenty of operation variations. 
     Thus, the operation test is often automatically executed using a test program so as to save the overall energy spent for the operation test. For instance, an automatic functional tool called “Quick Test Professional (QTP)” provided by Hewlett-Packard (HP) Company executes a test program prepared by a user, thereby automating the operation test. 
     PRIOR ART DOCUMENTS 
     Patent Documents 
     
         
         [Patent Document 1] Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2004-227396. 
       
    
     DISCLOSURE OF INVENTION 
     Problems to be Solved by the Invention 
     For the operation test using the test program, however, one has to go through the trouble of preparing the test program itself. Also, the content or quality of such a test program varies depending on a person who writes the program and therefore it is difficult to support or assure the reliability of the operation test. 
     The present invention has been completed in view of the foregoing problems and a main purpose thereof is to provide a technique by which to efficiently execute an operation test. 
     Means for Solving the Problem 
     One embodiment of the present invention relates to an operation verifying apparatus for executing a test program to verify an operation of a predetermined device. 
     The operation verifying apparatus acquires a log indicating a content of a sequence of operations performed on the predetermined device, and generates the test program for reconstructing the sequence of operations in such a manner of selecting a function associated with an operation recorded in the log from among a plurality of kinds of functions into which a logic to achieve various types of operations is incorporated and in such manner of selecting an input function having an interface by which to acquire input data to be inputted to the predetermined device as to a data input operation to the predetermined device. 
     Then the input data to be passed to the input function is acquired, and the test program is executed by passing the acquired input data to the input function for the purpose of verifying an operation performed when the sequence of operations is executed based on the acquired input data. 
     Optional combinations of the aforementioned constituting elements, and implementations of the invention in the form of methods, apparatuses, systems, computer programs, recording media recording the computer programs, and so forth may also be effective as additional modes of the present invention. 
     Advantageous Effects 
     The present invention facilitates the execution of an operation test in an efficient manner. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS 
         FIG.  1 A  is a screen view showing a first screen of a portal site. 
         FIG.  1 B  is a screen view showing a second screen of a portal site. 
         FIG.  2    shows a log entry when a dictionary test is executed. 
         FIG.  3    shows a program which is used to execute a dictionary test. 
         FIG.  4    is a functional block diagram of an operation verifying apparatus according to a first embodiment. 
         FIG.  5    briefly shows a process from the acquisition of a log to the execution of an operation test. 
         FIG.  6    is a screen view showing a log screen. 
         FIG.  7    is a screen view showing a function setting screen. 
         FIG.  8    is a screen view showing a program screen. 
         FIG.  9    is a screen view showing an input setting screen. 
         FIG.  10    is screen view showing a case setting screen. 
         FIGS.  11 A and  11 B  show brief structures of an operation verifying apparatus according to a first embodiment and an operation verifying apparatus according to a second embodiment, respectively. 
         FIGS.  12 A and  12 B  show brief operations of an operation verifying apparatus according to a first embodiment and an operation verifying apparatus according to a second embodiment, respectively. 
         FIG.  13    is a block diagram showing a functional configuration of an operation verifying apparatus according to a second embodiment. 
         FIG.  14    briefly shows a process, in a second embodiment, from the detection of a user&#39;s data input operation to the execution of an operation test. 
         FIG.  15    is a screen view showing a function setting screen according to a second embodiment. 
         FIG.  16    is a screen view showing a function setting screen according to a second embodiment. 
         FIGS.  17 A and  17 B  are each a screen view showing an input setting screen according to a second embodiment. 
         FIG.  18    is a screen view showing a case setting screen according to a second embodiment. 
         FIG.  19    is a block diagram showing a structure of an operation verifying apparatus according to a third embodiment. 
         FIG.  20    is a block diagram to explain an operation of a text result comparison unit. 
         FIG.  21    is an exemplary screen for specifying test result data to be compared. 
         FIG.  22    shows an example of test result image data prepared by a Web page the operation of which is to be verified. 
         FIG.  23    shows an example of test result image data prepared by a Web page the operation of which is to be verified. 
         FIG.  24    shows an example of a comparison result image. 
         FIG.  25    shows an example of a mask image. 
         FIG.  26    is a flowchart showing a test result comparison processing according to a third embodiment. 
     
    
    
     BEST MODE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION 
     First Embodiment 
       FIG.  1 A  is a screen view showing a first screen  300  of a portal site. 
     In a first embodiment, a description is given of an operation test for a portal site “XYZ!”. The first screen  300  of a portal site includes an edit box  302  and a search link  304 . The search link  304  includes four links which are “Web”, “Blogs”, “Images” and “Dictionary”. As a user enters a string of characters in the edit box  302  and mouse-clicks on any one of the search links  304 , the search of the inputted character string starts. For example, if a string of characters “liquid crystal” is inputted to the edit box  302  and a “Web” link is mouse-clicked, Web sites containing the character string “liquid crystal” will be the search targets. If the string of characters “liquid crystal” is inputted to the edit box  302  and a “Blogs” link is mouse-clicked, blog pages, containing the character string “liquid crystal”, among Weblogs set up in this portal site will be the search targets. 
     Assume herein that a character string “test” is inputted in the edit box  302  and a “Dictionary” link is mouse-clicked. 
       FIG.  1 B  is a screen view showing a second screen  310  of a portal site. 
     As “test” is inputted on the first screen  300  of a portal site and “Dictionary” is mouse-clicked, the second screen  310  of a portal site as shown in  FIG.  1 B  is displayed. In a search result space  306 , items related to the character string “test” are arranged in sequence through a “dictionary” service provided by this portal site. 
     In this case, supposed that a “test” link listed on the top of the search result space  306  is mouse-clicked. 
     In the above-described process, the following three operations A1 to A3 are done. 
     A1. An operation in which the character string “test” is inputted to the edit box  302  of the first screen  300  of a portal site. 
     A2. An operation in which a “Dictionary” link in the search link  304  on the first screen  300  of a portal site is mouse-clicked. 
     A3. An operation in which a “test” link in the search result space  306  on the second screen  310  of a portal site is mouse-clicked. In what is to follow, an operation process achieved by the above-described operations A1 to A3 is called “dictionary test”. 
       FIG.  2    shows an entry of a log  320  when a dictionary test is executed. 
     If a client terminal employing the QTP of HP company is operated and the above-described operations A1 to A3 are executed by accessing the above-described portal sites, the QTP will generate the log  320  as shown in  FIG.  2   . The operations A1 to A3 are recoded as code sentences of a predetermined format in the log  320 . 
     For example, the operation A1 is expressed by a code sentence “Browser(“XYZ!”).Page(“XYZ!”).WebEdit(“p”).Set“test””. This means that a character string “test” is inputted relative to the Web site at “XYZ!”, the Web page named “XYZ!” and the edit box  302  named “p”. Here, the edit box  302  named “p” corresponds to the edit box  302  as shown in  FIG.  1 A  and  FIG.  1 B . 
     Similarly, the operation A2 is expressed by a code sentence “Browser(“XYZ!”).Page(“XYZ!”).Link(“dictionary”).Click”. 
     The operation A3 is expressed by a code sentence “Browser(“XYZ!”).Page(“XYZ!-all dictionaries-test”).Link(“test”).Click”. Though in the first embodiment a description is given based on the grammar of QTP, the format of code sentences is not limited thereto. 
     QTP can reproduce and execute an operation expressed by the code sentence, by interpreting the code sentence of the log  320 . Accordingly, once the log  320  is generated, the dictionary test of the same content can be repeatedly executed as many times as the user wishes. Also, if a part of the log  320  is rewritten, the dictionary set can be executed under a content different from that when it is manually operated. For example, suppose that: 
     the character string “test” contained in 
     “Browser(“XYZ!”).Page(“XYZ!”).WebEdit(“p”).Set“test”” is changed to another character string “taste” and the code sentence is now rewritten to
 
“Browser(“XYZ!”).Page(“XYZ!”).WebEdit(“p”).Set“taste”” and inputted to QTP, then the dictionary test having the same content with only the character string inputted to the edit box  302  having been altered can be automatically executed.
 
     However, a certain degree of knowledge about the grammar of the log  320  is required if the operation test is to be executed by rewriting the log  320 . Also, it is possible that human-induced mistakes are made in the course of rewriting the log  320 . 
       FIG.  3    shows a program  330  which is used to execute the dictionary test. 
     Instead of executing the operation test using the log  320 , a test program may be prepared by describing a content equivalent to the log  32  using a Visual Basic (VB) script or the like language. A program  330  shown in  FIG.  3    is a test program prepared by referencing the log  320  of  FIG.  2   . 
     For example, the operation A1 is expressed by a VB function, which is “WebEditSet(Browser(“XYZ!”).Page(“XYZ!”).WebEdit(“p”), DataTable(“p1, dtGlobalSheet”)”. A concrete logic of “WebEditSet” function is one as shown in the middle of  FIG.  3   . 
     The program  330  differs from the log  320  in that the program  330  does not contain input data such as the character string “test”. Instead, the “WebEditSet” function receives input data from a file expressed as “dtGlobalSheet” (hereinafter referred to as “input data file”). In other words, the logic and the input data are separated from each other. The rewriting or replacement of the input data file allows the execution of the dictionary test of the identical logic on the basis of the input data. As compared with the operation test done manually and the operation test using the log  320 , the operation test using the program  330  is advantageous in that it is more likely to be available in an increased number of variations. 
     Nevertheless, the test operation using the program  330  has the following problems d1 and d2 to be resolved. 
     d1. Preparation of a program itself is required additionally. 
     d2. The content of a program varies depending on a programmer who writes the program. 
     For example, it is not always true that the logic of WebEditSet function prepared by a programmer P1 in association with the operation A1 is identical to the logic of WebEditSet function prepared by a programmer P2 in association with the operation A1 even though the function names are the same. Also, the program itself may contain a bug therein. Thus, efforts to assure the reliability of the program  330  itself need to be addressed. Also, though the program  330  also needs a logic, which is not directly related to the operation test, such as an exception processing, all programmers do not necessarily implement the logic in which the exception processing has been taken into consideration. In the case of a WebEditSet function shown in  FIG.  3   , for instance, the logic is implemented in such a manner that the WebEditSet function can handle a case where the input data is a blank character. However, a WebEditSet implemented by another program may be devoid of such consideration. 
     As a result, the content of an operation test and the result thereof are more susceptible to the skill of a programmer. 
       FIG.  4    is a functional block diagram of an operation verifying apparatus  100 . 
     Each functional block shown in the block diagrams of the present patent specification may be achieved hardwarewise by elements and mechanical devices such as a CPU and the like of a computer, and softwarewise by computer programs or the like. Depicted herein are functional blocks implemented by cooperation of hardware and software. Therefore, it will be obvious to those skilled in the art that the functional blocks may be implemented by a variety of manners including hardware only, software only or a combination of both. For example, each functional block may be stored in a recording medium as a computer program, installed in a hard disk of an information processing device, and read out by memory as appropriate before it is executed by a processor. 
     The operation verifying apparatus  100  may be formed as an exclusive-use hardware or formed as a software module in cooperation with a user interface (e.g., Web browser). 
     A description is given here assuming that the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the first embodiment is a software module formed as an ad-on of QTP. 
     The operation verifying apparatus  100  includes an interface (IF) unit  110 , a data processing unit  130 , and a data storage  140 . 
     The IF unit takes charge of performing an interface between the user and QTP, for instance. The data processing unit  130  executes various kinds of data processings based on the data acquired from the IF unit  110  and the data storage  140 . The data processing unit  130  also plays a role of an interface between the IF unit  110  and the data storage  140 . The data storage  140  is a storage area for storing various types of data. 
     IF Unit  110 : 
     The IF unit  110  includes an input unit  112  and an output unit  118 . The input unit  112  takes charge of processing inputs from the user and QTP, and the output unit  118  takes charge of processing outputs to the user and QTP. The input unit  112  includes a log acquisition unit  114  and an input data acquisition unit  116 . The log acquisition unit  114  acquires a log from QTP. The input data acquisition unit  116  acquires an input data file and obtains, from the input data file, input data to be supplied to a program. A detailed description of the input data file will be given in conjunction with  FIG.  5    and  FIG.  9   . 
     The output unit  118  includes a function setting screen display unit  120 , an input setting screen display unit  122 , a program screen display unit  124 , and a case setting screen display unit  126 . The function setting screen display unit  120  displays a function setting screen  210  as shown in  FIG.  7   . The input setting screen display unit  122  displays an input setting screen  230  as shown in  FIG.  9   . The program screen display unit  124  displays a program screen  220  as shown in  FIG.  8   . The case setting screen display unit  126  displays a case setting screen  240  as shown in  FIG.  10   . 
     Data Processing Unit  130 : 
     The data processing unit  130  includes a program generator  132 , a program execution unit  134 , and a test case registration unit  136 . The program generator  132  automatically generates a program for the operation test. The program execution unit  134  executes the thus generated program. In the first embodiment, QTP runs the program. The test case registration unit  136  registers an execution set in a case file. A detailed description of the execution set and the execution file will be given in conjunction with  FIG.  10   . 
     Data Storage  140 : 
     The data storage  140  includes a log storage  142 , a program storage  144 , an input data file storage  146 , a case file storage  148 , a function storage  150 , and result storage  152  (hereinafter referred to as “test result storage  152 ” also). The log storage  142  stores logs. The program storage  144  stores programs. The input data file storage  146  stores input data files. The case file storage  148  stores case files. The function storage  150  stores a function library about functions registered in the program for the operation test. The result storage  152  stores the results of operation tests. 
       FIG.  5    briefly shows a process, in the first embodiment, from the acquisition of a log to the execution of an operation test. 
     A device on which an operation test is to be performed is manually operated first. In the first embodiment, the portal site “XYZ!” is accessed by operating on a Web browser of a client terminal. QTP generates a log, and the log acquisition unit  114  obtains the log from the QTP. A function is associated beforehand with each type of code sentence. The function setting screen display unit  120  reads out a function library from the function storage  150  and thereby displays a list of functions associated with the respective code sentences contained in the log (S 1 ). The user can, as appropriate, add, change or delete any of the functions on the function setting screen display unit  120 . In this manner, the functions to be included in the program are identified. A detailed description of Step S 1  is given in conjunction with  FIG.  7   . 
     Then, input data to be supplied to this program are set (S 2 ). A setting content is registered as the input data file. A program is automatically generated from a group of functions set in Step S 1  (S 3 ). A detailed description of Step S 3  is given in conjunction with  FIG.  8   . 
     Then, a combination of a program and an input data file is registered as the “execution set” from a plurality of kinds of programs and a plurality of kinds of input data files. A plurality of execution sets may be registered (S 4 ). The setting content is registered as a case file. For example, if a program P1 is executed based on an input data file F2 and, thereafter, a program P2 is to be executed based on an input data file F6, the setting content will be registered as a first execution set and a second execution set in the case file. Here, the first execution set is a combination of the program P1 and the input data file F2, and the second execution set is a combination of the program P2 and the input data file F6. A detailed description of Step S 4  is given in conjunction with  FIG.  10   . 
     Finally, the program is executed according to the case file (S 5 ). In the above-described example, the program execution unit  134  executes the first execution set and the second execution set in a continued manner. The program execution unit  134  registers the execution result, namely the test result, in the result storage  152 . 
       FIG.  6    is a screen view showing a log screen  200 . As the log acquisition unit  114  acquires a log, the output unit  118  displays the log on a log display area  202  of the log screen  200 . The user may copy and paste the log of QTP into the log display area  202 . Or the output unit  118  may acquire a log (file) generated by QTP while the log screen  200  is being displayed, and may display the thus acquired log in the log display area  202 . When the user mouse-clicks on an execution button  204 , the function setting screen  210  shown next in  FIG.  7    is displayed. 
       FIG.  7    is a screen view showing a function setting screen. 
     The program generator  132  identifies functions related to code sentences contained in a log, and displays a list of the identified functions in a function column  214  of the function setting screen  210 . A number column  212  indicates the execution sequence. A description column  216  indicates the description of each function. An object column  218  indicates an object to be operated. A parameter column  219  indicates the name of parameter. An input value column  217  indicates input data. 
     In the function library, the “WebEditSet” function is associated beforehand with the above-described code sentence, indicating the operation A1, which is as follows: 
     “Browser(“XYZ!”).Page(“XYZ!”).WebEdit(“p”).Set“test” 
     As the program generator  132  reads out a first code sentence of the log  320 , the program generator  132  references the function library in the function storage  150  and identifies the “WebEditSet” function. The object to be operated by the operation A1 is a page of “Browser(“XYZ!”).Page(“XYZ!”)”. Thus, “Browser(“XYZ!”).Page(“XYZ!”)” is set in the object column  218 . The “WebEditSet” function is a function where the input data set in the edit box “p” (edit box  302 ) is an argument. Although input data which is to be set in the edit box “p” may be set in the input value column  217 , a description is given hereunder assuming that the input data is not registered in the function setting screen  210 . The input data is set in the input setting screen  230  described in detail in conjunction with  FIG.  9   . 
     Since the log  320  contains three code sentences corresponding to the operations S 1  to A3, the program generator  132  identifies three functions. The user may add, delete or change the function on the function setting screen  210 . A fourth function “TextCheck” and a fifth function “WebScreenCapture” are functions added and selected by the user. 
     The “TextCheck” function is a function by which to determine whether a character string to be substituted into a variable “q” is contained in a currently displayed Web page. The “WebScreenCapture” function is a function used to capture the currently displayed Web page on a screen. The “WebScreenCapture” function is a convenient function in managing the trails of operation test results. In this manner, not only the functions, complying with a user operation, such as the “WebScreenCapture” function but also a function, used to assist and support the operation test, such as the “TextCheck” function is prepared. The user can set a logic which he/she wishes to add to the operation test, by merely selecting a desired function from the function library. 
     As a test case setting button  215  is clicked, a case setting screen  240  of  FIG.  10    is displayed. As an input data file preparation button  213  is clicked, an input setting screen  230  of  FIG.  9    is displayed. As a program preparation button  211  is clicked, a program screen  220  of  FIG.  8    is displayed. 
     The operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the first embodiment has the following merits m1 and m2. 
     m1. A logic that the user wishes to be included in the program can be selected by merely selecting a function through the operation on a graphical user interface (GUI). Thus, the preparation for the program takes almost no trouble. 
     m2. The functions included in the program are those which have already been registered in the function library and therefore the quality of the program is less likely to vary depending on a person who writes the program. Required logics such as the exception processing are also incorporated beforehand into each function. 
       FIG.  8    is a screen view showing the program screen  220 . 
     When the program preparation button  211  is mouse-clicked in the function setting screen  210 , the program generator  132  generates a program and then the program screen display unit  124  displays the source code of the thus generated program on a program display area  22  of the program screen  220 . The program is stored in the program storage  144 . 
       FIG.  9    is a screen view showing the input setting screen  230 . 
     When the input data file preparation button  213  is mouse-clicked in the function setting function screen  210 , the input setting screen display unit  122  displays the input setting screen  230 . In the function setting screen  210 , parameters “p” and “q” are defined. A number column  232  indicates the input sequence. A variable column  234  indicates input data to the parameter “p”, whereas a variable column  236  indicates input data to the parameter “q”. In the input setting screen  230 , input data which are substituted into the parameters “p” and “q” are set. Each of the input data is stored as an input data file in the input data file storage  146 . 
     For example, as the input data file shown in  FIG.  9    is supplied to the program  330 , a plurality of dictionary tests, such as the following Tests 1 to 3, based on different input data can be conducted continuously. 
     Test 1. A character string “Test” is inputted to the edit box  302  and a dictionary is searched; it is determined whether a string character “examination” is contained in a screen displaying the execution result or not. 
     Test 2. A character string “test” is inputted to the edit box  302  and the dictionary is searched; it is determined whether or not the string character “examination” is contained in the screen displaying the execution result or not. 
     Test 3. A character string “test-case” is inputted to the edit box  302  and the dictionary is searched; it is determined whether the character string “examination” is contained in the screen displaying the execution result or not. 
       FIG.  10    is screen view showing the case setting screen  240 . 
     As the test case setting button  215  is mouse-clicked in the function setting screen  210 , the case setting screen display unit  126  displays the case setting screen  240 . A number column  244  indicates the execution sequence. An execution set column  245  indicates a brief description of each execution set. A program column  246  indicates a program to be executed. An input data file column  247  indicates an input data file from which input data is to be extracted. 
     A description is given hereinbelow assuming that the operation test is performed on a Web site of an Internet securities broker. 
     In  FIG.  10   , registered are six execution sets 1 to 6, namely, 1. Login, 2. News check, 3. Stock setting, 4. Bond selling, 5. Change of address, and 6. Logout. First, QTP generates a “login” project from a program called “login.vbs”. The “project” meant here is a directory including a group of files each having a QTP execution format. With the “login” project as an input, QTP executes processes defined in “login.vbs” and “login.xls”. As the user mouse-clicks on an execution button  248 , the “login” project of the execution set “Login” is first executed. As the first execution set “Login” is completed, a “ncheck” project is executed as the execution set “Newscheck”. 
     In this manner, the six execution sets which are 1. Login, 2. News check, 3. Stock setting, 4. Bond selling, 5. Change of address, and 6. Logout are executed successively when the execution button  248  is mouse-clicked. As a result, an operation test based on a test scenario “after a login and a check of news, the selling of part of shareholding and the selling of bond in portfolio are instructed and the address is changed and then logout is performed” can be automated. 
     The user can freely create the test scenario on the case setting screen  240 . For example, an execution set “Stock buying” may be registered instead of the execution set “Stock selling”. For example, not “stock1.xls” but another input data file may be registered as the input data file of the execution set “Stock selling”. The test scenario registered through the case setting screen  240  is recorded as a case file and stored in the case file storage  148 . 
     Varying or modifying the structure of a test scenario, the input data file and the like facilitates wider variations of a given operation test. 
     A description has been given of the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the first embodiment. 
     By employing the operation verifying apparatus  100 , the program and the input data, namely the processing and the parameters, can be separated from each other. And a program therefor can be automatically generated based on the settings made via the GUI. Thereby, programs of stabilized quality can be easily generated while the diversity of logics included in each program is assured. Also, only changing the content of an input data file allows changing the content of the operation test, thereby making it easy to broaden the variation of the operation test. 
     Further, the execution sets are registered in the case file and the test scenario is created using them, so that the operation tests suitable to various situations can be achieved by combining the existing programs. Also, prepared are not only functions, used to operate a device to be tested, such as the “WebEditSet” function but also functions, used to support the operation tests, such as the “WebScreenCapture” function. Thus, the efficiency and reliability are more likely to be improved. 
     Up to this point, the present invention has been described in conjunction with the first embodiment thereof. The embodiments in this patent specification are given solely by way of illustration. It will be understood by those skilled in the art that various modifications may be made to the combinations of the components and processes thereof, and all such modifications are also intended to fall within the scope of the present invention. Some examples of such modifications are described below. 
     In the first embodiment, the operation verifying apparatus  100  prepares a program on the condition that QTP has received a user&#39;s operation and has generated the log. 
     As a modification, the program may be generated when the Web browser has acquired an HTML file. In this case, the operation verifying apparatus  100  searches for a form tag included in the HTML file and identifies what kind of input interface is included in the HTML file. Then, a function with which to input data to each input interface is selected, and those functions are arranged in various orders; as a result, a program for the test can be generated without an explicit Web operation by the user. 
     Second Embodiment 
     Similar to the first embodiment, problems to be resolved by a second embodiment are that (1) the user has to go through the trouble of preparing the test program when the operation test is performed using the test program, and that (2) the content or quality of such a test program varies depending on a person who writes the program and therefore it is difficult to support or assure the reliability of the operation test. A main purpose of the second embodiment is to provide a technique by which to efficiently execute the operation test, too. 
     In order to resolve the above problems, an operation verifying apparatus according to the second embodiment executes a test program to verify an operation of a predetermined device, and it includes (i) an operation recording unit configured to detect a data input operation performed on the predetermined device and configured to record a function, which corresponds to the data input operation and which is provided with an interface used to acquire input data inputted to the predetermined device, in an operation input file that records a function to be set in the test program, (ii) a program generator configured to generate the test program for reconstructing the sequence of operations, performed on the predetermined device, by setting a program code according to the function recorded in the operation input file, and (iii) a program execution unit configured to execute the test program in such a manner that the input data is acquired from an input data file differing from the operation input file and is passed to the function. A detailed description thereof is given hereunder. 
     Proposed in the second embodiment is an operation verifying apparatus  100  which is modified over the above-described first embodiment. 
     A brief description is given of the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the second embodiment by first comparing the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the first embodiment with the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the second embodiment. 
       FIGS.  11 A and  11 B  show brief structures of the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the first embodiment and the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the second embodiment, respectively. As shown in  FIG.  11 A , the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the first embodiment  100  includes a QTP module  102 , which is an execution engine for an operation test, and a wrapper module  104  for efficiently performing the operation test of a Web server  400  using the QTP module  102 . The wrapper module  104  includes each functional block as shown in  FIG.  4   . 
     Referring to  FIG.  11 A , the user operates on the Web server  400 , the operation of which is to be verified, via the QTP module  102  (S 100 ). The wrapper module  104  acquires a log, which has recorded its operation input, from the QTP module  102  and presents the function setting screen  210  to the user (S 102 ). At the time the operation test is executed, the user has the wrapper module  104  generate an operation testing program which the QTP module can load, and has the QTP module 
     In contrast thereto, as shown in  FIG.  11 B , the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the second embodiment includes an integrated verification module  106  in which the function of the execution engine for an operation test and the function of the wrapper module  104  are integrated into a single unit. As the user operates on the Web server  40  via the integrated verification module  106  (S 200 ), the integrated verification module  106  sequentially detects its operation inputs and sets data of the function setting screen  210  so as to present the function setting screen  210  to the user (S 202 ). At the time the operation test is executed, the user has the integrated verification module  106  generate an operation testing program and has it execute the program (S 204 ). 
       FIGS.  12 A and  12 B  show brief operations of the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the first embodiment and the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the second embodiment, respectively. The user performs a data input operation on the Web server  400  (S 110 ), and the QTP module  102  outputs the log that has recorded its operation input (S 112 ). The user copies the data of the log to a predetermined area of the QTP module  102  (S 114 ). The wrapper module  104  sets and displays the function setting screen, based on the data of the log set in the predetermined area thereof (S 116 ). The user sets, via the function setting screen, a function and input data to be added or changed (S 118 ). 
     The wrapper module  104  generates a QTP program for the operation test, based on the data of the function setting screen (S 120 ). The user copies the QTP program to the predetermined input area of QTP module  102  (S 122 ). The user sets a scenario of an operation test, in which the QTP program and the input data file are specified as a set, on the case setting screen (S 124 ). Based on the scenario thereof, the wrapper module  104  passes the set of the QTP program and the input data file to the QTP module  102  so as to execute the operation test for each set (S 126 ). 
       FIG.  12 B  shows a brief operation of the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the second embodiment. The user performs a data input operation on the Web server  400  (S 210 ). The integrated verification module  106  sequentially detects the data input operations, records functions associated with the respective data input operations in the operation input file, and displays the recorded data of the operation input file on the function setting screen (S 212 ). The user sets a function and input data to be added or changed, in the operation input file via the function setting screen (S 214 ). Then the user sets the scenario of an operation test, in which the QTP program and the input data file are specified as a set, on the case setting screen (S 216 ). Based on the scenario thereof, the integrated verification module  106  generates and executes an operation testing program in which one or more sets in the scenario are gathered and aggregated (S 218 ). 
     As described above, the QTP module  102  and the wrapper module  104  are each a separate and independent unit in the operation verifying apparatus  100 . Thus, the user himself/herself needs to carry out a mediation work between them in order that one module can function in cooperation with the other module and vice versa. Also, the wrapper module  104  needs to call the QTP module  102  for each set in the scenario and execute the testing program for each set. 
     In contrast thereto, the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the second embodiment is structured such that the execution engine for an operation test and the wrapper module  104  achieving the efficient use of the execution engine are seamlessly integrated without them being separated from each other. Thus, as compared with the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the first embodiment, the work that should otherwise be done by the user to coordinate the separate modules is eliminated, so that the workload of the user to carry out the operation test can be reduced. Also, the operation testing program in which a plurality of sets in the scenario are aggregated is generated. Thus, a sequence of scenarios is executed by the execution of said program, thereby achieving a fast operation test. 
       FIG.  13    is a block diagram showing a functional configuration of the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the second embodiment. The functional blocks shown in  FIG.  13    are included in the integrated verification module  106  shown in  FIG.  11    B. The functional blocks in the second embodiment corresponding to those in the first embodiment are given the same reference numerals. For the functional blocks which are given the same reference numerals as those in the first embodiment, a description thereof will be given hereinbelow if the function thereof differs from that already described in the first embodiment and will be omitted if it is the same. 
     The data storage  140  includes an operation input file storage  143 , a program storage  144 , an input data file storage  146 , a case file storage  148 , and a function storage  150 . The operation input file storage  143  stores an operation input file that records functions to be set in the operation testing program. The program storage  144  stores operation testing programs generated according to the operation input file. 
     An input unit  112  in an IF unit  110  includes an operation detector  115  and a user setting receive unit  117 . The operation detector  115  sequentially detects data input operations operated on a Web server  400  by the user. The user setting receive unit  117  detects user&#39;s setting information about a function setting screen  210 , an input setting screen  230  and a case setting screen  240 . 
     An output unit  118  in the IF unit  110  includes a function setting screen display unit  120 , an input setting screen display unit  122 , and a case setting screen display unit  126 . The function setting screen display unit  120  instructs a predetermined display unit to display the function setting screen  210  that displays the content of the operation input file recorded in the operation input file storage  143 . 
     A data processing unit  130  includes a program generator  132 , a program execution unit  134 , a test case registration unit  136 , an operation recording unit  137 , and an input data recording unit  138 . The operation recording unit  137  identifies a function, associated with the data input operation detected by the operation detector  115 , by referencing the function storage  150 , and records the thus identified function in the operation input file. Also, the operation recording unit  137  records the user&#39;s setting information about the function setting screen  210 , in the operation input file. The input data recording unit  138  records, via the input setting screen  230 , the input data inputted by the user in the input data file. The program generator  132  generates an operation testing program according to the function recorded in the operation input file. The program execution unit  134  executes the thus generated operation testing program as an execution engine for the operation test, and records the result thereof in the result storage  152 . 
       FIG.  14    briefly shows a process, in the second embodiment, from the detection of a user&#39;s data input operation to the execution of an operation test. The user first accesses the Web server  400  by operating on the Web browser of a client terminal, and executes various kinds of operations, typically a data input operation, on a Web page provided by the Web server  400 . The operation detector  115  sequentially detects the user&#39;s data input operations, and the operation recording unit  137  reads out a function library from the function storage  150  and sequentially records the functions associated with the respective data input operations in the operation input file (S 220 ). 
     Then, the function setting screen display unit  120  reads out the operation input file of the operation input file storage  143 , and displays a function setting screen that displays a list of functions corresponding to the user&#39;s operations. The user can, as appropriate, add, change or delete any of the functions on the function setting screen. Also, the user can set input data to be set statically, in the operation testing program. In this manner, the functions to be included in the operation testing program are identified. A description of the function setting screen is given in conjunction with  FIG.  15    and  FIG.  16   . 
     Then, the input setting screen display unit  122  displays the input setting screen  230 . The user sets, via the input setting screen  230 , input data to be dynamically supplied to the operation testing program at the time of executing the operation test. The input data set by the user is recorded in the input data file (S 222 ). A description of the input setting screen  230  is given in conjunction with  FIG.  17   . 
     Then, the case setting screen display unit  126  displays the case setting screen  240 . The user registers a combination of an operation input file and an input data file selected from a plurality of kinds of operation input files and a plurality of kinds of input data files, as an execution set. The test case registration unit  136  registers one or more execution sets in the case file (S 224 ). For example, if in a first test case the setting content of an operation input file F01 is executed based on an input data file F12 and then the setting content of an operation input file F02 is executed based on the setting content of an input data file F16, they will be registered as: 
     (First Test Case:) 
     Execution set 1: (Operation input file F01)+(Input data file F12), and 
     Execution set 2: (Operation input file F02)+(Input data file F16). 
     A description of the case setting screen  240  is given in conjunction with  FIG.  18   . 
     Next, the program generator  132  generates an operation testing program based on the case file and the operation input file (S 226 ). More specifically, the functions sequentially recorded in the operation input file set in execution set may be sequentially set in program codes of the operation testing program. Also, if a plurality of execution sets are set in a single test case, the program generator  132  will gather the functions recorded in the operation input file of each execution set into a single operation testing program and set it. 
     Also, if the input data itself is set for a function of the operation input file, the program generator  132  will set the input data statically in the operation testing program. For example, when the operation testing program is to be generated, the input data is set beforehand as an argument of the function in the program code. Also, where an input data file is specified for the function in the operation input file, the data of the input data file is set so that the data is loaded at the time of program execution. 
     Finally, the program execution unit  134  executes the operation testing program and reconstructs a sequence of operations operated on the Web server  400  by the user (S 228 ). For the functions requiring the data of the input data file, the data of the input data loaded when the operation testing program is executed is passed as an argument. In other words, the functions are executed based on the input data obtained dynamically from the input data file. 
       FIG.  15    is a screen view showing the function setting screen  210 .  FIG.  15    is the function setting screen  210  showing “SearchEntered.exl” described later in conjunction with  FIG.  18   . A data file column name column  250  is an area where the column name of an input data file that has recorded input data set in the parameter is specified. The user may describe the input data itself in the input value column  217 . Instead, the user may specify the column name of the input data file in the data file column name column  250 . If the column name of the input data file is specified in the data file column name column  250 , one or more input data set in the column of the input data file will be loaded at the time of the execution of the operation testing program and then passed to the function. 
       FIG.  16    is a screen view showing the function setting screen  210  according to the second embodiment. In the input value column  217  corresponding to a “department name search” parameter in  FIG.  16   , a list of candidates for the input data is displayed in a drop-down list  252 . The candidates for the input data displayed in the drop-down list  252  are those displayed in the drop-down list on a Web page. The user can select input data from the dropdown list  252 , so that a user&#39;s burden required for the setting of the input data can be reduced. 
     In order to set the drop-down list  252 , the operation detector  115 , when the user performs a data input operation on the Web page, acquires the candidates for the input data displayed in the drop-down list of said Web page. For example, the operation detector  115  acquired the candidates for the input data in the drop-down list, from data of the Web page acquired from the Web server  400  (e.g., HTML data). The operation recording unit  137  records the candidates for the input data in the input value column  217  of the operation input file. When the input value column  217  is entered, the function setting screen display unit  120  displays a list of candidates for the input data recorded in the operation input file in a drop-down list format. 
       FIGS.  17 A and  17 B  are each a screen view showing the input setting screen  230  according to the second embodiment.  FIG.  17 A  shows the input setting screen  230  displaying an input data file “SearchEnterData.xls” whose column name is specified in the function setting screen  210  of  FIG.  15    and  FIG.  16   . A “Full name in Kanji characters” column and a “Full name in Kana characters” column of  FIG.  17 A  are specified in  FIG.  15    and  FIG.  16   . 
       FIG.  17 B  shows the input setting screen  230  displaying another input data file “LoginData2.xls”. A description of the input data files in  FIGS.  17 A and  17 B  will be given later in conjunction with  FIG.  18   . 
       FIG.  18    is a screen view showing the case setting screen  240  according to the second embodiment. The basic execution sequence of each execution set is set in an execution number column  253 , whereas the identification information of a test case is set in a test case ID column  254 . The identification information indicating a group for which the repetitive processing of an execution set is performed is set in a group ID column  256 , whereas the reference range of an input data file in the operation test is set in a row number column  258 . An operation input file in each execution set is set in an operation input file column  260 , whereas an input data file of each execution set is set in an input data file  262 . The setting content of the case setting screen  240  is stored in the case file storage  148  as a case file. 
     As an execution button  264  is pressed down in the case setting screen  240 , the program generator  132  generates an operation testing program according to the case file and the operation input file. More specifically, the program generator  132  generates a single operation testing program in which the functions recorded in each operation input file are set in the program codes, based on one or more operation input files. For example, the program generator  132  generates a single operation testing program used to execute a registration case and generates a single operation testing program used to execute a search case, according to the case file that has recorded the content of the case setting screen  240 . Note here that a “single operation testing program” means a program executed as an executable unit, namely a program the execution of which is triggered by each execution instance, and does not mean or depend on the physical number of programs. 
     When executing one function recorded in each operation input file, the program execution unit  134  passes the data of a column associated with said function in an operation input file, among data of the input data file associated with the operation input file, to said function. 
     Also, the program execution unit  134  handles a plurality of execution sets to which the same group ID has been assigned in the same test case, as the same group on which the same repetitive processing is to be performed. More specifically, a plurality of execution sets to which the same group ID has been assigned are each executed repeatedly and, with every repetitive processing thereof, a predetermined number of records is passed to a function recorded in the operation input file of each execution set. Assume in the second embodiment that, with every repetition, one record recorded in the input data file is passed to the function. 
     Note also that an operation testing program in which a repeat instruction to execute the above-described processing is set in a program code may be generated by the program generator  132 . 
     For an execution set to which a row number is specified, the program execution unit  134  passes the input data specified by the row number of the input data file, to the function recorded in said operation input file. Thus, if the repetitive processing is specified by a group ID and also a row number is specified, the processing will be repeated as many times as the number of rows specified. For example, in a registration case of  FIG.  18   , no group lying across different execution sets is set; for each execution set, the processing equivalent to one piece of input data is executed. In contrast thereto, in a search case of  FIG.  18   , the processing equivalent to one piece of input data is repeated three times for each execution set. 
     More specifically, at the first repetition, data of “LoginData2.xls” at the 35th row thereof, which is “t_yamada” is passed to the function recorded in “Login2.xls”. Then, data of “Full name in Kanji” at the first row of “SearchEnterData.xls” which is “Yamada Taro” in Kanji characters is passed to the function recorded in “SearchEntered.xls”, namely the function at No. 1 of  FIG.  15   . Also, data of “Full name in Katakana” at the first row of “SearchEnterData.xls” which is “Yamada Tao” in Katakana characters is passed to the function at No. 2 of  FIG.  15   . 
     At the second repetition, data of “LoginData2.xls” at the 36th row thereof, which is 24 “h_yamada” is passed to the function recorded in “Login2.xls”. Then, data of “Full name in Kanji” at the second row of “SearchEnterData.xls” which is “Yamada Hanako” in Kanji characters is passed to the function at No. 1 of  FIG.  15    recorded in “SearchEntered.xls”. Also, data of “Full name in Katakana” at the second row of “SearchEnterData.xls” which is “Yamada Hanako” in Katakana characters is passed to the function at No. 2 of  FIG.  15   . 
     Similarly, at the third repetition, input data at a row number which has been incremented is passed to each function. 
     By employing the operation verifying apparatus according to the second embodiment, the previously described advantageous effects as those achieved by the first embodiment is achieved as well. More specifically, the processing and the parameters can be separated from each other, and the settings made via the GUI are achieved. Thus, programs of stabilized quality can be easily generated while the diversity of logics included in the operation testing program is assured. Also, the setting of the input data file makes it easy to broaden the variation of the operation test. Further, the setting of the case file allows the execution of the operation test in various types of scenarios. 
     Further, the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the second embodiment is structured such that an execution engine function of executing the operation testing program and a wrapper function of achieving the efficient use of the execution engine work seamlessly in cooperation with each other without the need for mediation by the user. Thus a user&#39;s burden required for the execution of the operation test can be reduced. Also, different from the case where the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the first embodiment is used, the user has no need to be conscious of the environment for the execution of programs such as projects for QTP. That is, it is only necessary that the user sets an operation input file and an input data file both using the format the user can easily understand and operate. As a result, the user can easily implement the operation test. 
     Also, in the operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the second embodiment, each operation testing program in which a plurality of execution sets in the same test case are gathered and aggregated is generated and then the each operation testing program is executed. As compared with the execution for every execution set in the operation verifying apparatus according to the first embodiment, namely the execution for every QTP project generated based on the execution set therein, the overhead incurred when a sequence of operation tests in each test case is reduced in the second embodiment, thereby achieving a fast operation test. 
     The present invention has been described in conjunction with the second embodiment. Modifications to the second embodiment are now described below. 
     The operation verifying apparatus  100  according to the second embodiment further allows the setting of a group where a plurality of execution sets are repeatedly executed. 
     Thereby, the execution sets can be flexibly divided into smaller sets and therefore the scenario of an operation test can be set in a flexible manner. Thus, if the input data files are identical to each other, the reference range can be flexibly changed according to the scenario and therefore the diversified variations of operation tests can be easily achieved. 
     In the above-described second embodiment, the drop-down list  252  is shown as an example where the setting of values in the function setting screen  210  is assisted. In a modification, the candidates for the input data selectably displayed with radio boxes, check boxes, list boxes or the like in a Web page may be selectably displayed on the functions setting screen  210  using the drop-down list  252  or other formats. That is, when the data input is operated on a device whose operation is to be verified, the candidates for the input data selectably displayed for the user in various formats may be selectably displayed when values on the function setting screen  210  are to be set. 
     In the above-described first embodiment, the operation verifying apparatus  100  prepares an operation testing program on the condition that a user operation to the Web server  400  is received by QTP and then a log is generated. Also, in the above-described second embodiment, the user&#39;s operation to the Web server  400  is detected by the operation verifying apparatus  100  and then the operation testing program is prepared. As a modification, the operation testing program may be generated at the time when the operation verifying apparatus  100  has obtained an HTML file from the Web server  400 . In such a case, the operation verifying apparatus  100  searches for a form tag contained in the HTML file and identifies which kind of interface is included in the HTML file. Then, a function used to input data to each input interface is selected and those functions are arranged in various possible orders. In this manner, the operation testing program can be generated without requiring an explicit Web operation by the user. 
     Third Embodiment 
     A problem to be resolved by a third embodiment is now explained. Generally, an operation test of a Web page is conducted as follows. That is, the operation test is conducted in such a manner that an input operation is performed on a Web browser displaying the Web page and its operational result is verified. The operational result after a modification to the Web page needs to be verified by comparing an operational result before the modification with an operational result after the modification. Conventionally, this comparative verification is done visually by the test engineers using a screen image in printed form (on paper). A main object of the third embodiment is to provide a technique capable of easily achieving to compare and verify an operation verification test of a Web page. 
     In order to resolve the above-described problem, an operation verifying apparatus according to the third embodiment executes a test program to verify an operation of a Web page. This apparatus includes (i) an operation recording unit configured to detect a data input operation performed on the Web page and configured to record a function provided with an interface used to acquire input data inputted to the Web page, in an operation input file wherein the function corresponds to the data input operation, (ii) a program generator configured to generate the test program for reconstructing a sequence of operations, performed on the Web page, by setting a program code according to the function recorded in the operation input file, (iii) a program execution unit configured to execute the test program in such a manner that the input data is acquired from an input data file differing from the operation input file and is passed to the function, (iv) a test result storage configured to record the Web page after an execution of the test program, as test result data, (v) a comparison unit configured to compare previous test result data after a previous execution of the test program with present test result data after the present execution of the test program, and (vi) a comparison result preparation unit configured to output a comparison result image identifying a difference detected as a result of comparison made by the comparison unit. 
     By employing this embodiment, an output result obtained from the operation verification test performed on a Web page is verified against an output result in the past and thereby a difference therebetween is identified and outputted onto a screen. Thus, the burden required in comparing and verifying the output results can be reduced. In other words, the outputs in the operation verification test performed on a Web page can be easily compared and verified. 
     It is to be noted here that test result data of a Web page includes both a case where the test result data thereof is represented by a screen image and a case where it is in the form of a file of a markup language such as HyperText Markup Language (HTML) and eXtensible Markup Language) that configure the output results of the Web page. A detailed description thereof is given hereunder. 
     A description has been given of the first embodiment and the second embodiment where the operation verifying apparatus  100  prepares the operation testing program of a Web page and then the operation of the Web page is verified. The execution of the operation testing program results in outputting a Web page screen which is an operation result, and then the test result data are stored in the result storage. Since it is desirable that the above-described operation verification be repeatedly conducted every time the Web page is modified, there are a plurality of test result data of a Web page. Note that a Web page on which the operation test is to be performed is hereinafter called “page to be tested (or testing page)” also. 
     In a conventional practice, whether these test result data are matched with each other or not is verified manually by the test engineers. In other words, both a screen after the operation verification of a Web page at a certain point in time and a screen after the operation verification of a modified Web page are captured and printed out. Then, those printed out are verified against each other and thereby whether there is any error or variance in the operation result or not is visually checked. If the number of modifications increases, the number of screen captures printed will also increase, thus making it difficult to manage them. Also, if the operation result of the Web page comes in more than one page or a great number of values are outputted, visually checking them imposes a heavy burden on the test engineers. 
     Thus, the third embodiment provides a technique with which the burden required in comparing the output result obtained from the operation verification test performed on a Web page against the output result in the past is reduced. 
       FIG.  19    is a block diagram showing a structure of an operation verifying apparatus  500  according to the third embodiment. In  FIG.  19   , the functional blocks in the third embodiment corresponding to those in the first embodiment and the second embodiment are given the same reference numerals. For the functional blocks which are given the same reference numerals as those in the first embodiment and the second embodiment, a description thereof will be given hereinbelow if the function thereof differs from that already described in the first embodiment and the second embodiment and will be omitted if it is the same. 
     The operation verifying apparatus  500  is structured such that a test result comparison unit  4510  is added to the operation verifying apparatus  100 . The test result comparison unit  4510  inputs and outputs data to and from the aforementioned IF unit  110  and the data storage  140  as necessary. The test result comparison unit  4510  includes a test result acquisition unit  4512 , a comparison unit  4510 , a mask storage  4516 , a comparison result preparation unit  4518 , a user specification receive unit  4520 , and a mask preparation unit  4522 . 
     The test result acquisition unit  4512  acquires test result data after the operation verification, recorded in the test result storage  152 . This test result data is image data in which the screen output from a Web page is captured. Where the operation result consists of more than one page, it is desirable that the test result be captured into a single piece of image data by scrolling the pages. However, such a test result of more than one page may be divided into a plurality of image data, instead. 
     The comparison unit  4514  compares the image data of the latest test result with the image data in the past test result, and detects a difference between them. Known image comparison software may be used to compare such image data with each other. For example, a difference between pixels of image data of the latest test result and their corresponding pixels of image data in the past test result is simply computed, so that portions thereof which are matched therebetween become zero and therefore the difference therebetween can be easily detected. 
     Comparing such two sets of image data with each other instead of comparing the texts of the test result allows not only the difference between the tests but also the difference in terms of design to be detected. 
     The comparison result preparation unit  4518  outputs the image data of the latest test result as a comparison result image while the difference between the previous and the new test result data detected through the comparison made by the comparison unit  4514  is being identified and displayed accordingly. This comparison result image is displayed on a user terminal via the output unit  118  of the IF unit  110 . The user can easily grasp the difference between the previous and the new test result data by viewing the portions indicating the difference therebetween identified and displayed on the comparison result image. The difference therebetween identified and displayed may be indicated by shaded regions, in different color, by highlighting the difference, or by underlining the difference, for example, or using any other optional methods. 
     The mask preparation unit  4522  prepares a mask image by which a part of test result data, in which the user permits the difference between two sets of the test result data, is not identified and displayed. As for the masking range, the user specification receive unit  4520  receives a range specified by the user from the user terminal via the input unit  112  and then delivers it to the mask preparation unit  4522 . The thus prepared mask image is stored in the mask storage  4516  and is used for the comparison between two sets of the subsequent test result data. A detailed description will be given of the preparation of the mask images by referring to  FIG.  22    to  FIG.  25   . 
     If there is any mask image stored in the mask storage  4516 , the comparison result preparation unit  4518  will apply the mask image to the comparison result image and then display it on the user terminal. Through this masking processing, the difference within the masked range is displayed such that a display area identified as the difference is excluded, namely, a normal display is seen. 
     Subsequently, an operation of the test result comparison unit  4510  is described by referring to  FIG.  19   . The test result acquisition unit  4512  acquires the image data in the past test result (hereinafter referred to as “comparison source data” also)  4350  and the image data in the latest test result (hereinafter referred to as “comparison destination data” also)  4352 . The comparison unit  4514  compares the image data of the latest test result with the image data in the past test result (S 4320 ), and the comparison result preparation unit  4518  prepares a comparison result image  4354 . The user references the comparison result image and sets a range which allows the difference between the previous data and the new data, as the masking range (S 4322 ) and the mask preparation unit  4522  prepares a mask image  4356  based on this masking range. For the comparison of the subsequent test results (at the second time and thereafter) (S 4324 ), the comparison result preparation unit  4318  performs masking processing where the mask image is applied to the comparison result images  4354  (S 4326 ). As a result, a post-masking comparison result image  4358 , where the display of an identified masking range has been excluded, is generated and then outputted to the user terminal. 
       FIG.  21    is an exemplary screen for specifying the previous and the new test result data to be compared. When the comparison of those test result data is started, the test result acquisition unit  4512  displays a specified screen  4530  on the user terminal. The specified screen  4530  contains a region  4532  to specify a comparison source data file path and a region  4534  to specify a comparison destination data file path, and a region  4536  to specify a region  4536  where the comparison result image data is to be saved. After the file paths have been specified at the respective regions, clicking on a compare button  4538  loads the comparison source data and the comparison destination data, which in turn starts the comparison processing. 
     If the comparison source data and the comparison destination data are not stored as a single item of image data but stored as a plurality of image data per page, a configuration may be such that a directory storing a plurality of image data in a unified manner can be specified as a file path. In such a case, the comparison unit compares the image data for each page where the comparison source data and the comparison destination data are associated with each other, and the comparison result preparation unit prepares a comparison result image per page. Also, a configuration may be such that a comparison result image on a page, where a difference is found between comparison source data and comparison destination data, and a comparison result image on a page, where no difference is found therebetween, can be stored in different directories, respectively. 
       FIG.  22    and  FIG.  24    each shows an example of test result image data prepared by a Web page the operation of which is to be tested. Assume herein that a page to be tested creates a schedule table that manages the schedule of a plurality of conference spaces on a daily basis. Assume also that  FIG.  22    shows image data  4540  indicating a test result in the past and  FIG.  23    shows image data  4550  indicating a test result this time. Comparing  FIG.  22    and  FIG.  23   , it is found that the both schedule tables in  FIG.  22    and  FIG.  23    are prepared correctly but the dates in the schedule tables differ because the dates on which the operation verification tests were performed differ from each other. 
     Since the dates in the previous and the current test result image data differ, the comparison result preparation unit  4518  prepares a comparison result image  4560  as shown in  FIG.  24   . In the comparison result image  4560 , portions indicating the dates are shaded (indicated by the reference numerals  4562  in  FIG.  24   ) so as to identify and display them. In this manner, simply searching for the thus identified and displayed portions by referencing the comparison result image  4560  allows the user to easily grasp the difference between the previous and the current test result data. 
     However, as described above, the dates in the test results naturally differ depending on when the operation verification test is conducted. It is desirable therefore that those differences be identified and displayed as difference points. Hence, the mask preparation unit  4522  prepares a mask image to mask the portions where the user allows the difference. 
       FIG.  25    shows an example of such a mask image  4570 . As shown in  FIG.  25   , the portions corresponding to the dates are specified as the masking range  4572 . The user himself/herself can specify this masking range via the user specification receive unit  4520 . For example, the masking range is specified in a manner such that the portions where the test results may be allowed to differ are surrounded using a pointer or mouse on the comparison result image  4560 . As the mask range is specified by the user, the mask preparation unit  4522  prepares a mask image as those masking ranges. When the subsequent test results are compared, the comparison result preparation unit applies the mask image to each comparison result image so that the display areas of the identified portions corresponding to the masking ranges are excluded and displayed accordingly. 
     In addition to the aforementioned dates, examples of the range within which the user permits the difference in a comparison result, namely the portions to be specified as the masking range may include numbers indicating statistical results or stock prices updated daily, the results of Web search, images switched on a daily basis, and mere decorative images that do not affect the operation of Web pages. Note that those examples described above should not be considered as limiting. 
       FIG.  26    is a flowchart showing a test result comparison processing according to the third embodiment. 
     The test result acquisition unit  4512  acquires the comparison source data and the comparison destination data for the operation verification test, from the test result storage  152  (S 4302 ). The comparison unit  4514  compares the comparison source image data and the comparison destination image data with each other, and detects a difference therebetween if any (S 4304 ). The comparison result preparation unit  4518  checks if there is any mask image stored in the mask storage  4516  (S 4306 ) and outputs a comparison result image displaying an identified difference (S 4310 )) if there is no mask image (N of S 4306 ). 
     The mask preparation unit  4522  makes an inquiry to the user as to whether he/she prepares a mask image using the comparison result image or not (S 4312 ). If the user prepares the mask image (Y of S 4312 ), the mask preparation unit  4522  will receive the specification by the user regarding the masking range (S 4314 ), prepare the mask image and store the prepared mask image (S 4316 ). If no mask image is to be prepared (N of S 4312 ), Steps S 4314  and S 4316  will be skipped. 
     If there is any mask image in Step S 4306  (Y of S 4306 ), the comparison result preparation unit  4518  will apply the mask image to the comparison result image (S 4308 ) and output a post-masking comparison result image where the display of an identified masking range has been excluded (S 4310 ). 
     As described above, by employing the third embodiment, an output result obtained from the operation verification test performed on a Web page is verified against an output result in the past and thereby a difference therebetween is identified and outputted onto a screen. Thus, the previous and the new test result are easily compared with each other. Also, the range within which the difference between the previous and the new test result data is to be permitted is specified as a mask. Thus an arrangement is achieved such that a display area of the identified masking range shall not be displayed at all even though the results differ. This arrangement can reduce the trouble of checking on a range where the results naturally differ, especially in a case where the operation verification test is repeated a number of times or in a case where the test result contains a plurality of pages therein. 
     The present invention has been described in conjunction with the third embodiment. Modifications to the third embodiment are now described below. 
     In the above-described third embodiment, a description has been given of a case where a mask image is prepared based on the range specified by the user. As another method, a mask may be prepared, without involving the user operation, using a difference image between the comparison source image data and the comparison destination image data. For example, suppose that, as a result of a comparison made between the comparison source image data and the comparison destination image data, the test engineers has confirmed that no problem arises except the portion where the user can permit the difference therebetween. In this case, the mask preparation unit may reference the difference image and prepare a mask image in such a manner that a pixel having a partial component of the difference and a predetermined range surrounding said pixel (e.g., a range corresponding to a character in a given text) are set as the masking range. 
     A description has being given of an example where the image data captured from the screen display of a test result are compared with each other. Note here, however, as long as the operation verification test is performed on a Web page, the test result contains markup language files written in HTML, XML or like language. Thus, as a modification of the third embodiment, a description is hereunder given of a case where HTML files of the test result are compared with each other. 
     In this modification, test result acquisition unit  4512  acquires an HTML file of the test result from the test result storage  152  as the comparison source data and the comparison destination data. The data are acquired by specifying an HML file path on a file specifying screen as shown in  FIG.  21   . 
     Then, the comparison unit  4514  compares the HTML files with each other for each row. If a difference or differences is/are detected, the comparison result preparation unit  4518  will prepare a comparison result HTML file identifying and displaying the portions corresponding to the detected difference(s) and display the execution result. More specifically, the comparison result HTML file is prepared in a format such that the row numbers, corresponding to the differences, in a comparison source HTML file or a comparison destination HTML file and the expected values and the actual values used in the comparison are recorded. 
     This comparison result HTML file may be used as a mask for the subsequent test result HTML files. If the comparison result HTML file is used directly as the mask, the comparison unit  4514  will determine the row numbers corresponding to the aforementioned differences, as regions to be masked, and exclude the regions-to-be-masked from the difference points. Also, a region that the user wishes to mask may be additionally specified. In such a case, the user additionally specifies a row number of the region-to-be-masked via the user specification receive unit  4520 . In response thereto, the mask preparation unit  4522  adds the newly specified row number to the comparison result HTML file that contains the row numbers of the differences in the previous comparison. The comparison unit  4514  compares the subsequent test result HTML file with the comparison result HTML file serving as the mask, for each row. The comparison unit  4514  determines the row numbers contained in the comparison HTML file as the regions-to-be-masked and skips the comparative verification of these regions-to-be-masked. 
     In the above-described embodiment and the modifications, the test result in the past is used as the comparison source data but this should not be considered as limiting. For example, image data of a desirable test result may be used as the comparison source data and thereby this image data thereof may be used to verify whether the Web page is normally operating or not. 
     Optional combinations of the aforementioned embodiments and modifications may also be useful as additional modes of the present invention. And it should be understood that new embodiments realized by such combinations and modifications thereof provide their own advantages. 
     It should be understood by those skilled in the art that the functions to be performed by the constituent features cited in the claims can also be realized by the components shown in the embodiments and modifications thereof alone or in combination.