CN114327587A

CN114327587A - Embedded military software quality evaluation method, system and storage medium

Info

Publication number: CN114327587A
Application number: CN202210008604.5A
Authority: CN
Inventors: 杨硕; 刘昕照; 马少辉; 孙文靖; 刘晓兰; 邹丽; 高誉菊; 姚奇森; 姬淑娟; 申璐
Original assignee: Beijing Jinghang Computing Communication Research Institute
Current assignee: Beijing Jinghang Computing Communication Research Institute
Priority date: 2022-01-05
Filing date: 2022-01-05
Publication date: 2022-04-12

Abstract

The invention relates to a quality evaluation method, a system and a storage medium of embedded military software, belongs to the field of software development and testing, and solves the problem that the existing quality evaluation method of embedded military software is difficult to operate and implement. The method comprises the following steps: establishing a quality measurement model; cutting the quality measurement model according to the functional characteristics of embedded military software, and further optimizing the weight of each evaluation index in the quality measurement model according to different grades of the embedded military software so as to obtain an embedded quality measurement model of a corresponding grade; obtaining a metric value from the research and development stage data and the test stage data of the embedded military software to be evaluated; and obtaining a quality evaluation result of the embedded military software to be evaluated by utilizing the embedded quality measurement model of the corresponding grade based on the grade and the measurement element value of the embedded military software to be evaluated.

Description

Embedded military software quality evaluation method, system and storage medium

Technical Field

The invention relates to the technical field of software development and testing, in particular to a method and a system for evaluating the quality of embedded military software and a storage medium.

Background

Along with the continuous improvement of informatization and digitization degrees of military equipment, the quantity of military software is greatly increased, the software scale is larger and larger, the software complexity is higher and higher, the core function is larger and larger, the requirements on functionality, reliability and the like of the software are more and more prominent, and how to better control the quality of the military software becomes a problem to be solved urgently. There is a strong need for a technical solution that can measure the quality status of software, thereby providing a reliable basis for implementing quality control.

The software quality evaluation technology is always concerned by experts and scholars at home and abroad as the core content of software quality control, and a plurality of achievements are obtained. The Software Quality Evaluation method comprises the steps that a Software Quality model is defined by ISO/IEC9126 Software Engineering-Product Quality, a basic process of Software Quality Evaluation is defined by ISO/IEC14598Software Product Evaluation, a military Software Quality model in China is defined by GJB5236-2004 military Software Quality measurement, Software Quality attributes are divided into 6 characteristics, Software Quality is evaluated from 6 large aspects of functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability and portability, and a basic process of military Software Product Evaluation in China is defined by GJB24 2434A-2004 military Software Product Evaluation. The software quality model is generally divided into three levels: software quality characteristics, software quality sub-characteristics, software quality metrics.

In the prior art, the common steps for evaluating the quality of military software sequentially comprise: selecting a quality model suitable for target software; according to the importance of each software quality sub item and quality measurement element, adopting an expert grading form to determine the weight value of each quality sub item; according to the quality metric elements defined in the quality model, obtaining the scoring condition of the software in each quality sub-item; and weighting and summarizing the scores of the software in each quality sub-item, and setting branch intervals of excellence, goodness, qualification and the like so as to evaluate the software.

The prior art has at least the following defects: the rationality in the quality measurement model selection and quality evaluation process is too strong, and the calculation method of most software quality measurement elements and the collection method of measurement element data are highly abstract, so that the software quality measurement elements are not easy to operate and implement in engineering application. The existing software quality evaluation technology cannot support wide and effective application in engineering aiming at the special software development process and product structure of military software.

Disclosure of Invention

In view of the foregoing analysis, embodiments of the present invention are directed to providing a method, a system, and a storage medium for evaluating quality of embedded military software, so as to solve the problems of strong theoretical performance, difficulty in operation and implementation in practical engineering applications, and poor effectiveness of the existing embedded software quality evaluation method.

In one aspect, the invention provides an embedded military software quality evaluation method, which comprises the following steps:

establishing a quality measurement model;

cutting the quality measurement model according to the functional characteristics of embedded military software, and further optimizing the weight of each evaluation index in the quality measurement model according to different grades of the embedded military software so as to obtain an embedded quality measurement model of a corresponding grade;

obtaining a metric value from the research and development stage data and the test stage data of the embedded military software to be evaluated;

and obtaining a quality evaluation result of the embedded military software to be evaluated by utilizing the embedded quality measurement model of the corresponding grade based on the grade and the measurement element value of the embedded military software to be evaluated.

Further, the first-level evaluation indexes in the clipped quality metric model include: a functionality index, a performance efficiency index, a compatibility index, an ease of use index, a reliability index, and a maintainability index; the secondary evaluation indexes corresponding to the usability indexes comprise: identifiability.

Further, the optimizing the weight of each evaluation index in the quality measurement model according to different grades of the embedded military software to further obtain an embedded quality measurement model of a corresponding grade includes:

for any grade, respectively establishing importance judgment tables of a primary evaluation index, a secondary evaluation index and a tertiary evaluation index in the cut quality measurement model, and obtaining corresponding judgment matrixes according to the importance judgment tables;

and calculating to obtain the weight of each level of evaluation index by adopting an analytic hierarchy process according to the corresponding decision matrix, and further obtaining the embedded quality measurement model corresponding to any level.

Further, the metric value is a value corresponding to each three-level evaluation index in the quality metric model;

the obtaining of the metric value from the research and development stage data and the test stage data of the embedded military software to be evaluated comprises the following steps:

and respectively acquiring the metric element value of the embedded military software to be evaluated from a software development task book, a software requirement specification, a software design specification, a software source program, a software development document and a software test report in the test stage data in the development stage data.

Further, the method also comprises the following steps: and normalizing the obtained metric element value.

Further, the secondary evaluation indexes corresponding to the functional indexes comprise a functional completeness index, a functional correctness index and a functional suitability index; the secondary evaluation indexes corresponding to the performance efficiency indexes comprise time characteristic indexes and resource utilization indexes; the secondary evaluation index corresponding to the compatibility index comprises interoperability; the secondary evaluation indexes corresponding to the reliability indexes comprise maturity indexes, availability indexes and fault tolerance indexes; the maintainability index includes a modularity index and an easy-to-analyze index.

Further, the established first-level evaluation indexes in the quality metric model include: the system comprises a functionality evaluation index, a performance efficiency evaluation index, a compatibility evaluation index, an usability evaluation index, a reliability evaluation index, an information security evaluation index, a maintainability evaluation index and a transportability evaluation index.

Furthermore, the grades of the embedded military software comprise a first grade to a fourth grade, the embedded quality measurement models corresponding to the first grade and the second grade are the same, and the embedded quality measurement models corresponding to the third grade and the fourth grade are the same.

In another aspect, the present invention provides an embedded military software quality evaluation system, comprising:

the model establishing module is used for establishing a quality measurement model;

the model optimization module is used for cutting the quality measurement model according to the functional characteristics of the embedded military software, optimizing the weight of each evaluation index in the quality measurement model according to different grades of the embedded military software, and further obtaining the embedded quality measurement model of the corresponding grade;

the data acquisition module is used for acquiring a metric value from the research and development stage data and the test stage data of the embedded military software to be evaluated;

and the quality evaluation module is used for obtaining a quality evaluation result of the embedded military software to be evaluated by utilizing the embedded quality measurement model of the corresponding grade based on the grade and the measurement element value of the embedded military software to be evaluated.

In yet another aspect, the present invention provides a storage medium for storing a computer program, wherein execution of the computer program by a processor enables the embedded military software quality assessment method described above to be implemented.

Compared with the prior art, the invention can realize at least one of the following beneficial effects:

1. according to the quality evaluation method and system for the embedded military software, provided by the invention, the quality measurement model is established according to the latest standard of the quality evaluation of the military software, the quality measurement model is cut according to the functional characteristics of the embedded military software, and the quality measurement model parameters are optimized according to different functional characteristics corresponding to the grades of the embedded military software so as to obtain the quality measurement models of different grades, so that the embedded military software can be evaluated more accurately.

2. The embedded military software quality evaluation method provided by the invention obtains each measurement element value for evaluating the embedded military software from the data correspondingly generated in the software development stage and the data generated in the software test stage, provides the embedded military software quality evaluation method which is easy to operate and can be practiced, and can be widely and effectively used in practical engineering application.

In the invention, the technical schemes can be combined with each other to realize more preferable combination schemes. Additional features and advantages of the invention will be set forth in the description which follows, and in part will be obvious from the description, or may be learned by practice of the invention. The objectives and other advantages of the invention will be realized and attained by the structure particularly pointed out in the written description and drawings.

Drawings

The drawings are only for purposes of illustrating particular embodiments and are not to be construed as limiting the invention, wherein like reference numerals are used to designate like parts throughout.

FIG. 1 is a flow chart of a method for evaluating the quality of embedded military software according to an embodiment of the present invention;

fig. 2 is a schematic diagram of a primary evaluation index and a secondary evaluation index in a quality metric model according to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram of an embedded military software quality evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Detailed Description

The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this application, illustrate preferred embodiments of the invention and together with the description, serve to explain the principles of the invention and not to limit the scope of the invention.

The invention discloses a quality evaluation method of embedded military software. As shown in fig. 1, the method includes:

s110, establishing a quality measurement model;

s120, cutting the quality measurement model according to the functional characteristics of the embedded military software, and further optimizing the weight of each evaluation index in the quality measurement model according to different grades of the embedded military software so as to obtain an embedded quality measurement model of a corresponding grade;

s130, obtaining a metric value from the research and development stage data and the test stage data of the embedded military software to be evaluated;

s140, obtaining a quality evaluation result of the embedded military software to be evaluated by utilizing the embedded quality measurement model of the corresponding grade based on the grade and the measurement element value of the embedded military software to be evaluated.

Preferably, in order to fully evaluate the software quality, a quality measurement model with multiple dimensions needs to be established. Specifically, six characteristics of software quality are specified in ISO/IEC9126 and GJB 5236-: functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, portability, in GB/T25000.10-2016, extend the quality measurement model, and propose eight characteristics of software quality: functionality, performance efficiency, compatibility, ease of use, reliability, information security, maintainability, portability, each quality feature further subdivides the quality sub-feature, such as functional completeness refers to the degree of coverage of a function set to a specified task and target user, functional correctness refers to the degree to provide a product or system with a correct result of a desired accuracy, and the like. In order to comprehensively evaluate the software quality, a multi-dimensional quality measurement model needs to be established, and as shown in fig. 2, the corresponding primary evaluation indexes (i.e., quality characteristics) include a functional index, a performance efficiency index, a compatibility index, an usability index, a reliability index, a maintainability index, an information security index, and a portability index. The large-quality characteristics of functionality, performance efficiency, compatibility, usability, reliability, information security, maintainability and portability in GB/T25000.10-2016 are defined as follows:

the functionality index is used to provide the ability of the software product to meet both explicit and implicit requirements of functionality when the software is used under established conditions. The secondary evaluation indexes (quality sub-characteristics) corresponding to the functional indexes comprise a functional completeness index, a functional correctness index, a functional suitability index and a functional compliance index.

The performance efficiency index is used to evaluate how well the response time, processing time, and throughput rate of a product or system meet the requirements when executing its function. The corresponding secondary evaluation indexes comprise a time characteristic index, a resource utilization index and an efficiency compliance index.

The compatibility index is used for evaluating the degree of information that a product, system or component can exchange information with other products, systems or components and/or perform required functions under the condition of sharing the same hardware or software environment, and the corresponding secondary evaluation index comprises interoperability, coexistence index and compatibility dependency index.

The usability index is used for evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction characteristics of a product or a system under a specified condition, and in order to achieve the specified degree of use of a specific user for a target, the corresponding secondary evaluation indexes comprise a identifiability index, an easy-to-learn index, an easy-to-operate index, a user error defense index, a user interface comfort index and an easy-to-access index.

The reliability index is used for evaluating the degree of executing the specified function of the system, the product or the assembly in the specified time under the specified condition, and the corresponding secondary evaluation index comprises a maturity index, an availability index, a fault tolerance index, an easy recovery index and a reliability compliance index.

The information security index is used to evaluate the extent to which a product or system protects information and data so that a user, other product or system has data access consistent with its authorization type and authorization level. The corresponding secondary indexes comprise confidentiality indexes, integrity indexes, anti-repudiation indexes, verifiability indexes, authenticity indexes and compliance indexes of information safety.

The maintainability index is used for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency degree of the product or the system which can be modified by expected maintenance personnel, and the corresponding secondary evaluation indexes comprise a modularization index, an easy analysis index, a reusability index, an easy modification index, an easy testability index and a maintainability compliance index.

The portability index is used to assess the degree of effectiveness and efficiency with which a system, product, or component can migrate from one hardware, software, or other operational (or use) environment to another. The corresponding secondary evaluation indexes comprise an adaptability index, an easy-to-install index, an easy-to-replace index and a reliability compliance index.

In the prior art, GB/T25000.23-2019 proposes 95 groups of suggested measurement elements for the quality sub-characteristics in GB/T25000.10-2016, and the specific details are shown in Table 1:

TABLE 1

Because the software is various in types and different in functions, the software in different fields or different functions has different characteristics, the quality characteristics and the quality sub-characteristics of the software need to be cut and adjusted by combining the characteristics of the military software to be evaluated and the actual application of software engineering, more attention is paid to the functionality and the reliability of the common embedded military software, the characteristics of the common embedded military software are analyzed, and the cutting and the adjustment of the quality characteristics and the quality sub-characteristics of the software are shown in a table 2:

TABLE 2

GB/T25000.23-2019 gives 95 sets of metrics for software quality assessment, but it has the problems: the calculation method and the collection method of the measurement metadata thereof are highly abstract, and are difficult to be applied in concrete software engineering, such as functional suitability sub-characteristics in functionality, which are used for evaluating the degree of software to realize tasks and targets, two groups of measurement elements of 'functional suitability for using targets' and 'functional suitability for systems' are specified in GB/T25000.23-2019, and the calculation method and the collection method of related measurement elements are highly abstract, so that the measurement elements need to be cut, modified and redefined in combination with engineering practice.

Considering the special application scenario of evaluating the embedded military software, the embedded military software needs to be more efficiently and accurately evaluated by screening out corresponding measurement elements from GB/T25000.23-2019 and adding new measurement elements in combination with the embedded military software engineering practice. In the practice of embedded military software engineering, software requirements change and software version change are often used to judge that software completes tasks and targets according to a predetermined plan, and the more the requirements change in a certain period, the more frequent the version iteration is, the weaker the ability of the software to complete tasks and targets can be considered, so in the selection of the metric elements for functional suitability, the metric elements suggested in GB/T25000.23-2019 are not used, but the following metric elements are defined and used: "stability of functional specification", "stability of software version".

The evaluation indexes in the quality measurement model for evaluating the embedded military software obtained after cutting and selecting the measurement elements are shown in table 3:

TABLE 3

Preferably, the optimizing the weight of each evaluation index in the quality measurement model according to different grades of the embedded military software to further obtain the embedded quality measurement model of the corresponding grade includes:

In particular, military software may be classified into different classes according to its security criticality. In the GJB 102A "military software safety design guide", the military software safety level is divided into A, B, C, D four levels (i.e. the first level to the fourth level, respectively) from high to low. The importance of different quality characteristics also differs for different levels of software.

In order to fill out the index importance judgment table more intuitively, quantitative evaluation symbols "+" - "═ are introduced, and the correspondence relationship with quantitative values is shown in table 4:

TABLE 4

For A, B-level embedded military software, the functionality and the reliability are equally important, the performance efficiency is slightly more important, and the compatibility, the usability and the maintainability are obviously more important; efficiency is slightly more important than compatibility, ease of use, and maintainability; compatibility, usability and maintainability are basically the same, so as to establish a primary evaluation index importance judgment table 5:

TABLE 5

Functionality

Efficiency of performance

Compatibility

Ease of use

Reliability of

Maintainability

Functionality

＝

+

++

＝

++

Efficiency of

＝

+

-

+

Compatibility

＝

--

＝

Ease of use

＝

--

＝

Reliability of

＝

++

Maintainability

＝

The decision matrix obtained based on the importance decision table is shown in table 6:

TABLE 6

	Functionality	Efficiency of performance	Compatibility	Ease of use	Reliability of	Maintainability
							Functionality	1	3	5	5	1	5
Efficiency of	1/3	1	3	3	1/3	3
							Compatibility	1/5	1/3	1	1	1/5	1
Ease of use	1/5	1/3	1	1	1/5	1
							Reliability of	1	3	5	5	1	5
Maintainability	1/5	1/3	1	1	1/5	1

The maximum eigenvalue of the matrix obtained by calculation is 6.4227, the normalization requirement is met, and the weights of the obtained first-level evaluation indexes are respectively as follows: {0.394921,0.147063,0.0596313,0.0649305,0.273823,0.0596313}.

The importance determination table corresponding to the functional evaluation index is shown in table 7 for the weight of the secondary evaluation index:

TABLE 7

The corresponding obtained decision matrix is shown in table 8:

TABLE 8

	Functional completeness	Functional correctness	Functional suitability
				Functional completeness	1	1	5
Functional correctness	1	1	5
				Functional suitability	1/5	1/5	1

The calculated index weight is: {0.45,0.45,0.10}.

The same method is respectively adopted to calculate each secondary evaluation index and the weight of each tertiary evaluation index, and the obtained A, B-level embedded military software quality measurement model is shown in table 9:

TABLE 9

The number in parentheses after each index is the weight corresponding to the index.

For C, D-level embedded military software, functionality is slightly more important than reliability, and performance efficiency, compatibility, ease of use, and maintainability are important; compatibility, usability and maintainability are basically the same in importance, so that each level of index importance judgment table 10 is established as shown in the following table:

watch 10

Functionality

Efficiency of performance

Compatibility

Ease of use

Reliability of

Maintainability

Functionality

＝

+++

+

+++

Efficiency of

＝

---

＝

Compatibility

＝

---

＝

Ease of use

＝

---

＝

Reliability of

＝

+++

Maintainability

＝

The decision matrix obtained based on the importance decision table is shown in table 11:

TABLE 11

	Functionality	Efficiency of	Compatibility	Ease of use	Reliability of	Maintainability
							Functionality	1	7	7	7	3	7
Efficiency of	1/7	1	1	1	1/7	1
							Compatibility	1/7	1	1	1	1/7	1
Ease of use	1/7	1	1	1	1/7	1
							Reliability of	1/3	7	7	7	1	7
Maintainability	1/7	1	1	1	1/7	1

The maximum characteristic value obtained by calculation is 6.2877, the normalization requirement is met, and the obtained index weights are respectively: {0.461104,0.0548386,0.0548386,0.0548386,0.319642,0.548386}.

The weights corresponding to the secondary evaluation indexes and the tertiary evaluation indexes are calculated and obtained by the same method, and then an C, D-level embedded military software quality measurement model is obtained as shown in table 12:

TABLE 12

Preferably, obtaining the metric value from the development phase data and the test phase data of the embedded military software to be evaluated includes:

The importance and focus of each quality attribute and its sub-attributes is different for software in different industries. The military software development process particularly emphasizes strict development according to stages, and a proper process model (such as incremental type, waterfall type and the like) is selected for software development management and is adaptive to the military software development stage. The military software development stage is mainly divided into the following stages: a software system requirement analysis stage, wherein a development unit carries out software system analysis and design in a subsystem, reasonably divides the software and hardware functions of a computer system of the subsystem according to the functions, performances and interface requirements provided by the system, and determines the software and hardware system structures and software operation environments of the subsystem, and the product of the stage is a software development task book; in the software requirement analysis stage, a development unit refines and decomposes various requirements in a task book according to the requirements of software development of the task book, determines the input, output, processing, design constraint and performance requirements of each functional requirement, and the product in the stage is 'software requirement specification'; in the software design stage, a development unit establishes a software architecture and a relation between software components according to a software requirement specification document, defines a data interface and a control interface of each software component, and describes the process of a software unit, wherein the process comprises design decision, design constraint, input and output, data elements, logic and algorithm, and the product in the stage is 'software design description'; in the software implementation stage, a development unit codes computer instructions and data definitions strictly according to the requirements of design documents to ensure that the codes are consistent with the design documents, a safety key module is marked in a source code through an annotation block or other mechanisms to trace back to the software security requirement realized by the source code, and a product in the stage is a software source program; in the software testing stage, a development unit submits technical files such as a software task book, a software requirement specification, a software design specification, a source program and the like required by testing to an evaluation mechanism, the evaluation mechanism carries out testing, and products in the stage are software testing reports.

The sources corresponding to the three-level evaluation indexes are shown in table 13:

watch 13

Further, the method also comprises the following steps: and normalizing the obtained metric element values.

The metric values specified in GB/T25000.23-2019 are mostly between the intervals [0.0,1.0] and the closer to 1.0 the better the software quality. When the quality evaluation model is set, the design is also referred to, collected measurement elements are set to be measurement element values between [0.0 and 1.0], and quality evaluation can be carried out by using the measurement values and combining a weight method.

For some measurement units, the closer the measurement result is to 0.0, the better the measurement result is, such as "software defect rate", and the measurement formula is X ═ a/T, where a ═ software problem number and T ═ software scale. The measurement formula is changed to X ═ 1.0-a/T. The resulting metric results are between [0.0,1.0] and the closer to 1.0 the better the metric results, similar metrics are modified according to the method.

Specifically, the calculation methods corresponding to the metric elements are respectively shown in table 14:

TABLE 14

The beneficial effects of the embodiments of the present invention will now be illustrated by the following examples:

taking a certain comprehensive control software as an example, the software is A, B-level embedded military software, and corresponding measurement element values are obtained according to the method, in the measurement of coverage rate of function implementation, the total number of functions required in the specification of software requirement is 75, the software can be completed, and the measurement value is 1; on the function correctness measure, the software evaluation baseline to the software summary period, 7 functions have problems, and the measure value is 1-7/75-0.9067; on the stability metric of the functional specification, there are 3 changes of software requirements from the evaluation baseline to the software summary, and the metric value is 1-3/75 (total function number) is 0.96; on the stability measure of the software version, from the evaluation baseline to the software summary period of the software, the software version is more than 4, and the measure value is 0.

On the measurement of performance efficiency, the sufficiency of response time, namely the overtime time and the response time of software meet the specification requirement of software requirement, and the measurement value is 1; and the sufficiency of the turnover time, in the test process, the concerned software running time meets the specification requirement of the software requirement, and the measurement value is 1.

In the aspect of compatibility measurement and data format interchangeability, in the software testing process, all normal interface tests pass, the measurement value is 1, and the expression is as follows:

in the aspect of external interface sufficiency, in the software testing process, all abnormal interface tests pass, the measurement value is 1, and the expression is as follows:

on the measurement of usability, an annotation rate measurement element analyzes that the annotation rate of the software is greater than 20% and the measurement value is 1 through a static analysis tool; module average line number metric element, which analyzes the total line number 37752 of the software through a static analysis tool, the module total number 277, the metric value 0.3186, and the expression is:

the proportion of the modules with the line number exceeding 200 is measured, the proportion of the software module code line number exceeding 200 is analyzed by a static analysis tool to be 0.0975, and the measured value is 1-0.0975-0.9025.

In the measurement of reliability and fault repair rate, the software processes test problems in the test process, and the measurement value is 1; testing the coverage rate, wherein the number of the functional points covered by the software test can cover the number of the functional points in the specification of the software requirement by checking the software test report, the software test is sufficient, and the measurement value is 1; program failure density, the software finds 31 program problems in total, 7 of which are level 1 problems, 20 of which are level 3 problems, and 4 of which are level 4 problems, and the metric is 0.557, which is expressed as:

document problem density, the software finds 21 document problems in total, 19 of which are 3-level problems and 2 of which are 4-level problems, the measurement value is 0.729, and the calculation formula is as follows:

describing granularity of the required function points, decomposing the function points specified by the software task book into a software requirement specification according to a software evaluation report, wherein the measurement value is 1; designing a module description rate, wherein the number of the software modules is 277, the number of the modules in the software design description is 277, and the metric value is 1; system availability, the actual runtime of the software system being consistent with the runtime specified in the software requirements specification, the metric being 1; to avoid failure rate, the number of problems in the software is 52, the number of problems associated with fault tolerance is 2, the metric value is 0.962, and the calculation expression is:

on a maintenance scale: and (3) the sufficiency of the circle complexity degree is analyzed by using a static analysis tool, the software module proportion of the circle complexity degree of the software exceeding 20 is 0.0975, the measurement value is 0.26, and the calculation formula is as follows:

the module maximum round-robin degree is 228, is greater than 80, and is 0; module average circle complexity, analyzing the software by using a static analysis tool to obtain the average circle complexity of the module in the software, wherein the average circle complexity is 11.77 and is more than 10, and the measurement value is 0; analyzing the software by using a static analysis tool to obtain the average fan-out number of the software, wherein the average fan-out number is 2.15, the average fan-out number is less than 7, and the measurement value is 1; and (3) analyzing the software by using a static analysis tool according to the module proportion that the fan-out number of the module is greater than 7, obtaining that the number of the modules of which the fan-out number exceeds 7 is 70, wherein the measurement value is 0.7473, and the calculation formula is as follows:

carrying out linear weighting according to the weight distribution of the three-level evaluation indexes (measurement elements) to obtain the scores of the corresponding second-level evaluation indexes (sub-characteristics):

under the condition of obtaining the measurement values of the three-level evaluation indexes (measurement elements), linear weighting is carried out, and the weighted values in the AB-level embedded software quality measurement model are substituted, so that the scores of the two-level evaluation indexes (sub-characteristics) are obtained as follows:

function completeness is a coverage metric of function implementation 1-1;

a functional correctness metric 1-1;

functional suitability-stability metric 0.5+ stability metric 0.5-0.96-0.5 + 0.5-0.48 for the software version of the functional specification;

-0.5 + 0.5-1-0.5-1 measure of sufficiency of response time;

the resource utilization is equal to the average occupancy rate metric of the processor 0.5+ the average occupancy rate metric of the memory 0.5 is equal to 1, 0.5+1, 0.5 is equal to 1;

interoperability metric of data format interchangeability 0.5+ metric of external interface sufficiency 0.5-1-0.5-1;

the intelligibility metric of annotation rate 0.7+ the metric of average number of rows of modules 0.15+ the metric of proportion of modules whose number of rows exceeds 200 0.15-1-0.7 + 0.3186-0.15 + 0.9025-0.15-0.883165;

maturity is 0.093+ test coverage metric 0.039+ program fault density metric 0.452+ document problem density metric 0.23+ demand function point description granularity metric 0.093+ design module description rate metric 0.093 is 0.737434;

the availability is a system availability metric 1-1;

fault tolerance is the avoidance failure rate metric 1-0.962-1-0.962;

module-wise-circle-complexity sufficiency metric 0.6+ module-wise-maximum-circle-complexity metric 0.2+ module-wise-circle-complexity metric 0.2-0.5795-0.6 + 1-0.2 + 0.52-0.2-0.6517;

easy to analyze module fan-out metric 0.5+ module scale metric 0.5-0.99 for module fan-out greater than 7.

And carrying out linear weighting according to the weight distribution of the secondary evaluation indexes (sub-characteristics) to obtain the scores of the corresponding primary evaluation indexes (quality characteristics).

Under the condition of obtaining the metric values of the second-level evaluation indexes (sub-characteristics), linear weighting is carried out, and the weighted values are substituted into the weight values in the AB-level embedded software quality measurement model, so that the scores of the first-level evaluation indexes (quality characteristics) are obtained as follows:

functional score 0.45+ functional correctness score 0.45+ functional fitness score 0.1 0.9060;

performance efficiency score 0.5+ resource utilization score 0.5-1;

compatibility score 1 interoperability score 1;

a usability score 1 is an identifiability score 0.8832;

reliability score 0.78+ availability score 0.11+ fault tolerance score 0.11 0.7910;

maintenance score 0.6+ ease of analysis 0.4 0.4431.

And carrying out linear weighting according to the weight distribution of the primary evaluation index (quality characteristic) to obtain the score of the software quality comprehensive evaluation.

Under the condition of obtaining various measurement values of a first-level evaluation index (characteristic), linear weighting is carried out, and a weight value in an AB-level embedded software quality measurement model is substituted, so that the value of the software quality comprehensive evaluation is obtained as follows:

the total score 0.335+ 0.15+ 0.06+ 0.335+ 0.06+ 0.8581 + 0.06+ 0.8581 was converted to 85.81 points in percentage.

Performing quality evaluation on the software according to the quality measurement model, and establishing different levels, wherein the quality evaluation grade is unqualified if the quality characteristic evaluation value or the overall quality evaluation value of the software is in the interval [0.0,70.0 ]; the evaluation value is within the interval of 70.0,80.0), the evaluation grade is qualified; the evaluation value is within the interval [80.0,90.0), the evaluation grade is 'good'; the evaluation value was within the interval [90.0,100.0], and the evaluation rating was "excellent".

The total score of the software was converted to 85.81 points in percentage and rated "good".

The invention further discloses an embedded military software quality evaluation system. Since the system embodiment and the method embodiment are based on the same passing principle, the method embodiment may be referred to for the repeated points, and will not be described herein again.

Specifically, as shown in fig. 3, the system includes:

a model building module 110 for building a quality metric model.

The model optimization module 120 is configured to cut the quality metric model according to the functional characteristics of the embedded military software, and further optimize the weight of each evaluation index in the quality metric model according to different grades of the embedded military software, so as to obtain an embedded quality metric model of a corresponding grade;

the data acquisition module 130 is configured to obtain a metric value from the development stage data and the test stage data of the embedded military software to be evaluated;

and the quality evaluation module 140 is configured to obtain a quality evaluation result of the embedded military software to be evaluated by using the embedded quality metric model of the corresponding grade based on the grade and the metric value of the embedded military software to be evaluated.

In another aspect, an embodiment of the present invention discloses a storage medium for storing a computer program, and a processor executing the computer program can implement the foregoing embedded military software quality evaluation method. The storage medium may be Random Access Memory (RAM), memory, Read Only Memory (ROM), electrically programmable ROM, electrically erasable programmable ROM, registers, hard disk, a removable disk, a CD-ROM, or any other form of storage medium known in the art.

According to the quality evaluation method and the quality evaluation system for the embedded military software disclosed by the embodiment of the invention, firstly, a quality measurement model is established according to the latest standard of the quality evaluation of the military software, the quality measurement model is cut according to the functional characteristics of the embedded military software, and the quality measurement model parameters are optimized according to different functional characteristics corresponding to the grades of the embedded military software so as to obtain the quality measurement models of different grades, so that the embedded military software can be evaluated more accurately. Secondly, the embedded military software quality evaluation method disclosed by the embodiment of the invention obtains various metric values for evaluating the embedded military software from the data correspondingly generated in the software development stage and the data generated in the software test stage, provides an easy-to-operate and practical embedded military software quality evaluation method, and can be widely and effectively used in actual engineering application.

Those skilled in the art will appreciate that all or part of the flow of the method implementing the above embodiments may be implemented by a computer program, which is stored in a computer readable storage medium, to instruct related hardware. The computer readable storage medium is a magnetic disk, an optical disk, a read-only memory or a random access memory.

The above description is only for the preferred embodiment of the present invention, but the scope of the present invention is not limited thereto, and any changes or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the technical scope of the present invention are included in the scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. The quality evaluation method of the embedded military software is characterized by comprising the following steps:

establishing a quality measurement model;

2. The embedded military software quality evaluation method of claim 1, wherein the trimmed primary evaluation indicators in the quality metric model comprise: a functionality index, a performance efficiency index, a compatibility index, an ease of use index, a reliability index, and a maintainability index; the secondary evaluation indexes corresponding to the usability indexes comprise: identifiability.

3. The embedded military software quality evaluation method of claim 1 or 2, wherein the optimizing the weight of each evaluation index in the quality metric model according to different grades of the embedded military software to obtain the embedded quality metric model of the corresponding grade comprises:

4. The embedded military software quality evaluation method of claim 3, wherein the metric values are values corresponding to respective three-level evaluation indicators in the quality metric model;

5. The embedded military software quality evaluation method of claim 1 or 4, further comprising: and normalizing the obtained metric element value.

6. The embedded military software quality evaluation method of claim 2, wherein the secondary evaluation indexes corresponding to the functional indexes comprise a functional completeness index, a functional correctness index and a functional suitability index; the secondary evaluation indexes corresponding to the performance efficiency indexes comprise time characteristic indexes and resource utilization indexes; the secondary evaluation index corresponding to the compatibility index comprises interoperability; the secondary evaluation indexes corresponding to the reliability indexes comprise maturity indexes, availability indexes and fault tolerance indexes; the maintainability index includes a modularity index and an easy-to-analyze index.

7. The embedded military software quality evaluation method of claim 2, wherein the established primary evaluation indicators in the quality metric model comprise: the system comprises a functionality evaluation index, a performance efficiency evaluation index, a compatibility evaluation index, an usability evaluation index, a reliability evaluation index, an information security evaluation index, a maintainability evaluation index and a transportability evaluation index.

8. The embedded military software quality evaluation method of claim 3, wherein the levels of the embedded military software comprise a first level to a fourth level, the embedded quality metric models corresponding to the first level and the second level are the same, and the embedded quality metric models corresponding to the third level and the fourth level are the same.

9. An embedded military software quality evaluation system is characterized by comprising:

10. A storage medium storing a computer program, execution of which by a processor is capable of implementing the embedded military software quality assessment method of any one of claims 1-8.