Software change management

Patent metadata

Field	Value
Publication number	US-2018088929-A1
Application number	US-201615280509-A
Country	US
Kind code	A1
Filing date	Sep 29, 2016
Priority date	Sep 29, 2016
Publication date	Mar 29, 2018
Grant date	—

Abstract

Methods, systems, and computer program products for managing software changes and upgrades are described. Software change information of a plurality of changed objects of a software package is obtained, the software change information comprising a name of an object being changed and a type of the object being changed. An object dependency graph for the object is generated, the object dependency graph providing a data structure for identifying dependency relationships of the object being changed, and usage statistics for the object and the object type are retrieved. An identity of a module impacted by a software change is determined based on the data structure and an overall rating of the software change is generated.

First claim

1 . A computerized method, the method comprising:
obtaining, using one or more hardware processors, software change information of a plurality of changed objects of a software package, the software change information comprising a name of an object being changed and a type of the object being changed; generating, using the one or more hardware processors, an object dependency graph for the object, the object dependency graph providing a data structure for identifying dependency relationships of the object being changed; retrieving, from a database, usage statistics for the object and the object type; determining, using the one or more hardware processors, an identity of a module impacted by the software change based on the data structure; and generating, using the one or more hardware processors, an overall rating of the software change, the overall rating comprising one or more component ratings.

2 . The computerized method of claim 1 , further comprising retrieving usage statistics for an object dependent on the object and an object type of the dependent object.

3 . The computerized method of claim 1 , wherein one of the component ratings is based on an overall development readiness rating and the method further comprising generating the overall development readiness rating, the overall development readiness rating based on a summation of a module development readiness rating of one or more identified modules, each module development readiness rating computed by multiplying a percentage of test coverage for the corresponding module and a percentage of successful tests for the corresponding module.

4 . The computerized method of claim 1 , wherein one of the component ratings is based on an overall relative object list rating and the method further comprising generating the overall relative object list rating, the overall relative object list rating computed by dividing an object list rating by a count of objects in the software package, the object list rating based on a summation of an object type rating for each object type in the software package, each object type rating computed by multiplying a count of objects of the corresponding object type and an object criticality rating.

5 . The computerized method of claim 4 , wherein each object type rating is multiplied by an object toggle-ability factor prior to performing the summation of the object type rating for each object type in the software package.

6 . The computerized method of claim 1 , wherein one of the component ratings is based on an overall relative transport dependency rating and the method further comprising generating an object dependency graph and generating the overall relative transport dependency rating, the overall relative transport dependency rating computed by dividing a dependency rating by a count of objects in the software package, the dependency rating based on a summation of an object type dependency rating for each object type in the software package, each object type dependency rating computed by multiplying a count of objects of the corresponding object type and an object criticality rating.

7 . The computerized method of claim 1 , wherein one of the component ratings is based on an overall hot spot hits rating and the method further comprising generating an object dependency graph, determining an identity of objects common to objects of the object dependency graph and a list of critical objects, and generating the overall hot spot hits rating, the overall hot spot hits rating based on a summation of a hot spot hits rating for each identified object, each hot spot hits rating computed by multiplying a count of identified objects of the corresponding object type and an object criticality rating.

8 . the computerized method of claim 1 , further comprising mapping the overall rating to a user interface element to visually indicate a rating range of the overall rating and displaying the overall rating and the user interface element.

9 . The computerized method of claim 1 , further comprising weighting each component rating and summing the weighted component ratings.

10 . The computerized method of claim 1 , further comprising:
generating a object dependency graph for a used object; and displaying an identity of an object and a process impacted by the used object.

11 . The computerized method of claim 10 , further comprising:
obtaining a list of scheduled events; determining one or more objects associated with the list of scheduled events; determining an object common to the object dependency graph and the determined one or more objects; and determining an identity of an entity configured to rely on the common object.

12 . The computerized method of claim 11 , further comprising:
determining a percentage of impacted batches; determining a list of problematic objects; and determining an impact of the software package on a dumping object.

13 . The computerized method of claim 12 , further comprising:
reading usage statistics for problematic objects in the object dependency graph; computing a list of objects on a dump list that are impacted and a percentage of impacted objects on the dump list; and presenting the list of objects impacted by the software change and the list of objects on the dump list.

14 . The computerized method of claim 1 , further comprising:
conducting a search in a former software package for an object that was changed, reading an object list and a success or error message for the changed object from a data collection of historic import logs; and retrieving a result of the former software package.

15 . A computerized method, the method comprising:
obtaining, using one or more hardware processors, deployment procedure definitions from a database, each deployment procedure definition characterizing one of a plurality of deployment procedures; obtaining at least a portion of software package content; determining a deployment procedure rating for at least one of the deployment procedures; selecting one of the deployment procedures based on the deployment procedure; mapping, using at least one of the hardware processors, the software package content to the selected deployment procedure; and deploying the software package content to a processor-based system using the selected deployment procedure.

16 . The computerized method of claim 15 , further comprising generating an object dependency graph and mapping objects of the object dependency graph to a process of the software package content.

17 . The computerized method of claim 16 , further comprising:
determining if all object types of the software package are supported by a candidate deployment procedure of the plurality of deployment procedures; determining a count of objects in the software package; and determining if the candidate deployment procedure is compatible with the software package.

18 . The computerized method of claim 17 , further comprising:
determining if the candidate deployment procedure supports an undo capability; and multiplying a transport risk by an easing factor based on a result of the determination of whether the candidate deployment procedure supports an undo capability.

19 . The computerized method of claim 15 , further comprising determining a time window.

20 . An apparatus for configuring runtime bundles on a computer, the apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; memory to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors perform operations compr

Assignees

• Sap Se

Inventors

• Eberlein Peter
• Driesen Volker

Classifications

• G06F8/65 Primary

  Updates (security arrangements therefor G06F21/57) · CPC title

• G06F8/70

  Software maintenance or management · CPC title