Researchers Submit Patent Application, “Systems And Methods For Automated Code Validation”, for Approval (USPTO 20210406448): Allstate Insurance Company

2022 JAN 13 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Insurance Daily News -- From Washington, D.C., NewsRx journalists report that a patent application by the inventors Pandurangarao, Anil Kumar (Buffalo Grove, IL, US); Ravichander, Budharshun (Des Plaines, IL, US), filed on September 8, 2021, was made available online on December 30, 2021.

The patent’s assignee is Allstate Insurance Company (Northbrook, Illinois, United States).

News editors obtained the following quote from the background information supplied by the inventors: “A variety of documents, such as the source code for computer programs, can be created by developers. Developers typically follow a set of procedures and standards set out by an organization to ensure that the documents are created and tested in a consistent, repeatable manner. The documents are typically manually reviewed by senior developers or managers in order to ensure the quality of the documents and to verify that the appropriate procedures have been followed. The review itself is often defined by review checklists, but many times the checklists are not followed by the developers or reviewers.”

As a supplement to the background information on this patent application, NewsRx correspondents also obtained the inventors’ summary information for this patent application: “In light of the foregoing background, the following presents a simplified summary of the present disclosure in order to provide a basic understanding of some aspects of the invention. This summary is not an extensive overview of the invention. It is not intended to identify key or critical elements of the invention or to delineate the scope of the invention. The following summary merely presents some concepts of the invention in a simplified form as a prelude to the more detailed description provided below.

“Systems and methods in accordance with embodiments of the invention can automatically track the creation of documents, such as source code files and unit tests, along with the development of those documents. The document creation and development workflow can be automatically validated against a defined set of standards to ensure that the documents are properly created. The review of the documents can also be automatically validated to ensure that the review process is properly completed. A variety of metrics can be generated regarding errors and issues identified during the validation processes. These metrics can be used to identify common issues, automatically generate proactive suggestions to avoid issues during document creation and testing, and/or generate developer profiles indicating the performance of particular developers.

“The arrangements described can also include other additional elements, steps, computer-executable instructions, or computer-readable data structures. In this regard, other embodiments are disclosed and claimed herein as well. The details of these and other embodiments of the present invention are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the description, drawings, and claims.”

The claims supplied by the inventors are:

“1. A method, comprising: generating, by the computing device, a document based on document requirement data, wherein a set of unit tests are based on the document requirement data; calculating, by the computing device, a code coverage metric based on the set of unit tests performed on the document and passed; and when the code coverage metric exceeds a threshold value, transmitting, by the computing device and to a version control system, a check-in request comprising the document and the set of unit tests.

“2. The method of claim 1, wherein: the document requirement data comprises an indication of a first creation date of the document and an indication of a second creation date of the set of unit tests; and validating the document further comprises determining that the second creation date is prior to the first creation date.

“3. The method of claim 1, wherein validating the document further comprises determining an amount of time spent refactoring the document.

“4. The method of claim 1, wherein validating the document further comprises determining a number of refactors of the document.

“5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the computing device, a set of coding errors in the document by linting the document; and validating the document based on the set of coding errors.

“6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by the computing device, validation results for the document; obtaining, by the computing device, feedback determined based on the validation results; and providing, by the computing device, the feedback.

“7. The method of claim 6, wherein the feedback is provided in real-time.

“8. A computing device, comprising: a processor; and a memory in communication with the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: generate a document based on document requirement data, wherein a set of unit tests are based on the document requirement data; calculate a code coverage metric based on the set of unit tests performed on the document and passed; and when the code coverage metric exceeds a threshold value, transmit, to a version control system, a check-in request comprising the document and the set of unit tests.

“9. The computing device of claim 8, wherein: the document requirement data comprises an indication of a first creation date of the document and an indication of a second creation date of the set of unit tests; and the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to validate the document by determining that the second creation date is prior to the first creation date.

“10. The computing device of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to validate the document by determining an amount of time spent refactoring the document.

“11. The computing device of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to validate the document by determining a number of refactors of the document.

“12. The computing device of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to: determine, by the computing device, a set of coding errors in the document by linting the document; and validate the document based on the set of coding errors.

“13. The computing device of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to: transmit validation results for the document; obtain feedback determined based on the validation results; and provide the feedback.

“14. The computing device of claim 13, wherein the feedback is provided in real-time.

“15. A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising: generating a document based on document requirement data, wherein a set of unit tests are based on the document requirement data; calculating a code coverage metric based on the set of unit tests performed on the document and passed; and when the code coverage metric exceeds a threshold value, transmitting, to a version control system, a check-in request comprising the document and the set of unit tests.

“16. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein: the document requirement data comprises an indication of a first creation date of the document and an indication of a second creation date of the set of unit tests; and validating the document further comprises determining that the second creation date is prior to the first creation date.

“17. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein validating the document further comprises determining an amount of time spent refactoring the document.

“18. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein validating the document further comprises determining a number of refactors of the document.

“19. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising: determining a set of coding errors in the document by linting the document; and validating the document based on the set of coding errors.

“20. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising: transmitting validation results for the document; obtaining feedback determined based on the validation results; and providing, in real-time, the feedback.”

For additional information on this patent application, see: Pandurangarao, Anil Kumar; Ravichander, Budharshun. Systems And Methods For Automated Code Validation. Filed September 8, 2021 and posted December 30, 2021. Patent URL: https://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220210406448%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20210406448&RS=DN/20210406448

(Our reports deliver fact-based news of research and discoveries from around the world.)