United States Patent [191
`Jessen et al.
`
`US005410681A
`[11] Patent Number:
`[45] Date of Patent:
`
`5,410,681
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`[63]
`[51]
`
`[5 8]
`
`[56]
`
`[75]
`
`[73] Assignee:
`
`[21]
`[221
`
`Appl. No.:
`Filed:
`
`[54] INTERPRETER FOR PERFORMING
`REMOTE TESTING OF COMPUTER
`SYSTEMS
`Inventors: Jay A. Jessen, Santa Clara;
`Palanivelu Nagaraian, Campbell;
`Sean L. Flynn, Cupertino; James A.
`Schneider, San Jose, all of Calif.
`Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino,
`Calif.
`284,196
`Aug. 2, 1994
`Related US. Application Data
`Continuation of Ser. No. 795,913, Nov. 20, 1991, aban
`doned.
`Int. Cl.6 ..................... .. G06F 11/30; G06F 1l/32
`US. Cl. ........................... .. 395/500; 364/DIG. 1;
`364/DIG. 2; 364/234; 364/242.94; 364/264;
`364/264.3; 364/266; 364/267; 364/267.2;
`364/267.4; 364/267.6; 364/928; 364/943.9;
`364/944.9
`Field of Search ................ .. 364/DIG. 1 MS File,
`364/DIG. 2 MS File; 371/3, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2;
`395/500, 575, 118, 155, 156, 157, 162, 163
`References Cited
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`4,051,326 9/ 1977
`4,710,869 12/1987
`4,882,674 1 1/ 1989
`4,899,306 2/ 1990
`4,907,146 3/ 1990
`4,920,481 4/1990
`5,036,315 7/1991
`5,045,994 9/ 1991
`5,107,497 4/1992
`5,153,886 10/1992
`5,157,782 10/ 1992
`5,185,857 2/1993
`5,214,785 5/ 1993
`5,233,611 8/1993 Triantafyllos et a1. .......... .. 37 V 16.1
`
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`Rose, Caroline, Hacker, Bradley, Anders, Robert, Wi
`they, Katie, Metzler, Mark, Chernicoff, Steve, Es
`pinosa, Chris, A Verill, Andy, Davis, Brent and How
`ard, Brian, Titled “Inside Macintosh Volume 1”, Pub
`lisher Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Apr.
`
`1987, United States and Canada, pp. I-276, I-311 to
`I-334.
`Rose, Caroline, Hacker, Bradley, Anders, Robert, Wi
`they, Katie, Metzler, Mark, Chernicoff, Steve, Es
`pinoza, Chris, Averill, Andy Davis, Brent and Howard,
`Brian, Titled “Apple Inside Macintosh Volume V”,
`Publisher Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.,
`pp. V-29 to V-30, V-225 to V-258, V-297-298.
`Sidhu, Gursharan S., Andrews, Richard F. and Oppen
`heimer,-Alan B., Titled “Inside Apple Talk”, Publisher
`Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., United
`States and Canada, Mar. 1989, pp. 9-1 to 9-28.
`Primagl Examiner-Robert B. Harrell
`Attorney, Agent, or Firm—Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor &
`Zafman
`ABSTRACT
`[57]
`An interpretive language comprises instructions making
`up part of the ?rst sequence of instructions (a test
`“script”). The ?rst language comprises a ?rst set of
`instructions, the ?rst set of instructions causes a ?rst
`computer system (a “host” in a preferred embodiment)
`to issue a series of commands to a second computer
`system (a “target”) in order to cause the second com
`puter system to emulate user activity on the second
`computer system. User activity includes emulating typ
`ing text and/or moving a mouse cursor position. The
`language further comprises a second set of instructions
`which cause the ?rst computer system to issue a series
`of commands to the second computer system in order to
`cause the second computer system to respond to the
`first computer system with its state. This state includes
`user interface objects, and applications running in the
`target, etc. The language further comprises a third set of
`instructions, the third set of instructions causing the ?rst
`computer system to issue a sequence of commands to
`the second computer system to respond in a prede?ned
`manner. These instructions indicate that the target com
`puter system is to respond in within a given period of
`time, listen for further commands, etc. This is useful for
`repeatable and systematic testing of computer systems
`having a variety of hardware and software combina
`tions for compatibility testing. Multitasking using
`“threads” for control of different targets using different
`test routines is also provided.
`
`18 Claims, 11 Drawing Sheets
`
`we
`
`an:
`lumen: MQME
`an
`Nahum ltctrlgls‘El
`Gui-?g @
`Illllncl 23E
`
`.
`
`Folluns llloulod
`
`214
`212
`No 'lhnlds
`2]
`213 [?n-"are 0n
`\El Compile only 5‘11] Match Case Sensitive
`
`Keg Stroke am
`
`"w" 5""
`comm-ml Lin:
`w -
`
`CE)‘ '
`me.’
`
`Q
`l
`217
`
`001
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Sheet 1 of 11
`
`5,410,681
`
`121
`
`Target Machines
`
`Figure 1
`
`002
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Sheet 2 of 11
`
`5,410,681
`
`-llil Options
`Target | iergetMec
`‘m
`['
`Script file...
`Libraries ram...
`
`'
`
`I
`
`|
`
`4&4 km]
`ilutputfile...
`
`206
`
`208
`Network nmeggm
`Netuiork iietriglzm
`mm
`
`PQ‘IBIICB
`
`P Failures allowed
`
`214
`212
`Keg Stroke Rate
`‘
`215.}! No Threads
`213 ljz‘az a 0a
`207
`MW“ speed \@ \E] Compile only
`Match Case Sensitive
`-Commend line
`
`w .
`
`- -216
`
`RmVU-tes?oolfersimhihgeneiem users
`
`Figure 2
`
`003
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent Q
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Sheet 3 of 11
`
`5,410,681
`
`Mnclllrite 5.0
`applications
`llpplelink Folder
`m
`Q Auihorvare ml "m 3T2“
`MacPaint 2.0
`M
`[3 Landscape
`
`‘xii
`
`Size Kind
`21K
`' 314
`
`3
`
`‘w
`
`s
`
`330
`
`_
`300
`
`340
`
`6 File Edit Iliew Special
`
`350
`
`311
`
`310.
`
`Q Mama
`I ma:
`
`301 141K
`3K
`
`3“
`
`3”
`
`Ill]
`
`Trash
`
`Figure 3
`
`004
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Sheet 4 of 11
`
`5,410,681
`
`Mmmmwl.
`
`Select II"
`
`3GB
`
`Show Clipboard _
`
`_
`
`:
`
`Figure 4
`
`005
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Sheet 5 of 11
`
`5,410,681
`
`m’ m ' Menu 65 Item I '
`5a
`fuel I “am 3
`an
`Menu 65 Item 2
`m we em
`Menu 65 Item 3 _
`
`516
`517
`518
`
`006
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Sheet 6 of 11
`
`5,410,681
`
`lhemuhg
`level] Item I
`leuoll Item 2
`[mu-I1 ltvm ‘5
`
`i
`>
`
`5]]
`
`m
`
`MBIIII 76 "Bill I
`
`Menu 67 Item 2
`‘~1vhu 6? ltvm 5
`
`D
`>
`
`m N1mm It’) HMH 3
`
`' "
`
`007
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Sheet 7 of 11
`
`5,410,681
`
`700
`
`720
`I
`\
`C File Edit llieul Special
`
`721—>llJindnw2
`Name
`
`Size K'nd
`
`Size KN
`
`711
`
`' 710
`
`Ill]
`
`Trash
`
`Figure 7
`
`008
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Sheet 8 of 11
`
`5,410,681
`
`a m
`
`Rdmcmmmmm?
`
`Yss-p Retrieve omuggg?mmrm
`Using SendMouseO
`
`Calcu?mNewPositionRduivetoOld
`
`m
`
`NO _
`
`F
`395
`Issue PutMouseO To Move Mouse In
`Tm
`
`TargetGnngesVuiabkInManorym
`
`826 ~
`
`- MoveMmse
`
`B91
`Mouse Moved By Target on Next Cmsor
`Update Intel-mp:
`
`Figure 8
`
`009
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Sheet 9 of 11
`
`5,410,681
`
`Figure 9
`
`010
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Sheet 10 of 11
`
`5,410,681
`
`Figure 10
`
`011
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`US. Patent
`
`Apr. 25, 1995
`
`Sheet 11 of 11
`
`5,410,681
`
`m
`
`I
`
`“M9121?
`
`6am
`
`ma
`
`Tuk'l'imc
`
`1.195
`'
`Defer Command Until Sysmn
`
`110.6
`Process
`
`1191
`ScndResponsc
`
`‘1
`
`012
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`5,410,681
`
`INTERPRETER FOR PERFORMING REMOTE
`TESTING OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS
`
`This is a continuation of application Ser. No.
`07/795,913, ?led Nov. 20, 1991, now abandoned.
`
`5
`
`10
`
`2
`tests must be performed ?awlessly in order for the test
`ing process to be performed effectively. In addition, the
`user must view the tested system’s display and/ or other
`results to determine if the user action achieved the de
`sired result. Again, to ensure proper functioning, this
`must be done repetitively. Human beings typically can
`not perform repetitive tasks such as these in an effective
`manner and monitor all the actions on the tested com
`puter system perfectly. Also, testing of new computer
`systems requires repetitive and repeatable testing. This
`is to ensure that errors (“bugs”) or other unexpected
`results are reproducible so that the source of the error
`can be determined. Therefore, repeatable testing on
`various hardware/ software platforms is required. These
`tests should also have a minimum impact on the system
`being tested so as to minimize the effect of the testing
`process (called “corruption”) on the computer being
`tested. These tests should also have a means for record
`ing the results of the tests so that they may be examined
`to analyze the error.
`In summary, substantial delays and errors are caused
`in the testing of computer systems prior to shipping.
`Also, the testing process may fail to catch all errors in a
`particular hardware/software combination.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`1. Field of the Invention
`This invention relates to performing diagnostics on
`computer systems. More speci?cally, this application
`relates to remotely testing computer systems having a
`variety of hardware/software combinations.
`2. Background of Related Art
`Traditional testing of computer systems and their
`associated software and ?rmware typically require that
`manual tests be designed in order to make sure that each
`function on given programs is operating as expected. In
`addition, such testing must be performed on a variety of
`systems running different hardware/software combina
`20
`tions to determine the compatibility of the underlying
`system. These tests require substantial user intervention
`because certain operations on these computer systems
`must be performed manually. Also, the results of those
`operations must be monitored by looking at ?les, the
`display of the system, or other results of performing the
`operations to determine if the proper result has been
`accomplished. This is a time-consuming and tedious
`process. Sometimes this takes the form of releasing a
`pre-release version of the system, a so-called “beta re
`lease.” This type of release of a product is one which is
`distributed to a limited number of individuals, typically
`very experienced computer program developers, and
`/or system programmers, to determine if there are any
`remaining errors or other unexpected results in the
`underlying system or system software.
`Both the initial testing process and the beta testing
`process, discussed above, are time-consuming and te
`dious tasks for individuals testing the computer system.
`They are also expensive for a manufacturer. Such test
`ing requires that the system be tested on a wide variety
`of compatible platforms (for instance, in the Macintosh
`brand family of computers, the Macintosh SE brand
`computer system, the Macintosh II, and other systems
`using a variety of hardware platforms but having com~
`45
`patible operating system software). For instance, an
`error which might occur in one model of machine or in
`one type of software combination may not occur on
`another machine having a different hardware and/or
`software combination. Testing each hardware platform
`in combination with certain underlying software re
`quires careful testing for proper compatibility.
`In addition to a variety of manual tests required for
`ensuring the functioning of a computer system, because
`the tests are performed manually they may become very
`55
`time-consuming and tedious. The testing process may
`also become error-prone, depending on the individuals
`performing the testing of systems. To ensure that a
`computer software product is fully functional before
`shipping a released product, the so-called “beta release”
`process takes a certain period of time. A long delay in
`testing a ?nal version of a computer system, including
`speci?c hardware and software combinations, may
`delay the release of a product so much that competitive
`advantage may be lost.
`Some prior art systems used for testing also require
`that the user input a series of commands and/or user
`activity which will generate an expected result. These
`
`25
`
`35
`
`40
`
`50
`
`65
`
`SUMMARY AND OBJECTS OF THE
`INVENTION
`One of the objects of the present invention is to pro
`vide an automated means for testing a wide variety of
`computer systems in a standardized way.
`Another of the objects of the present invention is to
`provide a means for testing computer systems in a rela
`tively systematic and error-free environment.
`Another of the objects of the present invention is to
`provide a means for testing a computer system repeti
`tively such that any errors in a variety of computer
`hardware/software combinations may be reproduced
`and thus more easily eliminated.
`Another of the objects of the present invention is to
`provide a cost effective means to test a wide variety of
`computer software/hardware combinations.
`Another of the objects of the present invention is to
`provide a means for remotely testing at least one com
`puter system to minimize the interference (the corrup
`tion) of the computer system by the apparatus perform
`ing the test.
`Another object of the present invention is to provide
`a means for remotely testing a plurality of computer
`systems by emulating user manipulation of user inter
`face objects on the systems and monitoring the results
`of the manipulation remotely.
`Another of the objects of the present invention is to
`provide a means for remotely monitoring the user inter
`face and operating system of a computer system.
`These and other objects of the present invention are
`provided for by a system for interpreting a ?rst se
`quence of instructions. A ?rst language comprises in
`structions making up part of the ?rst sequence of in
`structions (a test “script”). The ?rst set of instructions
`of the language causes a ?rst computer system (a “host”
`in a preferred embodiment) to issue a series of com
`mands to a second computer system (a “target”) in
`order to cause the second computer system to emulate
`user activity on said second computer system. User
`activity includes emulating typing text and/or moving a
`mouse cursor position. The language further comprises
`a second set of instructions. The second set of instruc
`tions causes the ?rst computer system to issue a series of
`
`013
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS
`The present invention is illustrated by way of exam
`ple and not limitation of the of the accompanying in
`which like references indicate like elements and in
`which:
`FIG. 1 shows the coupling of computer systems used
`in the preferred embodiment.
`FIG. 2 shows a menu screen for initiating a test script
`from the host machine to be performed on a target
`machine.
`FIG. 3 shows some user interface objects which may
`be referred to and manipulated by the host machine on
`a target machine.
`FIG. 4 shows the structure of a “pull-down” menu
`which may be referenced and manipulated on a target
`machine by a host machine.
`FIGS. 5 and 6 show additional menu items which
`may be referenced and manipulated in a target machine
`by a host machine.
`FIG. 7 shows two windows which may be examined
`for matching user interface traits.
`FIG. 8 shows a flow diagram of a host'machine pro
`cess used to update a cursor position in a target ma
`chine.
`FIG. 9 shows a ?ow diagram of a host machine pro
`cess used to resize a window in a target machine.
`FIG. 10 shows an example of resizing a window in a
`target machine.
`FIG. 11 shows a communication scheme utilized by
`the target machine for communicating with the host.
`
`DETAILED DESCRIPTION
`A portion of the disclosure of this patent document
`contains material which is subject to copyright protec
`tion. The copyright owner has no objection to the fac
`simile reproduction by anyone of the patent disclosure,
`as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Of?ce patent
`?les or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright
`rights whatsoever. Copyright Apple Computer, Inc.
`The present invention covers a method and apparatus
`for remotely testing and monitoring computer systems.
`In the following description, for the purposes of expla—
`nation, speci?c data structures, information, packets,
`protocols, user interface objects, and other details used
`by the preferred embodiment are set forth in order to
`provide a thorough understanding of the present inven
`tion. It will be appreciated, however, by one skilled in
`the art that the present invention may be practiced
`without these speci?c details. In other instances, well
`known circuits and devices are shown in block diagram
`form in order to not unnecessarily obscure the present
`invention.
`
`5,410,681
`3
`commands to the second computer system in order to
`cause the second computer system to respond to the
`?rst computer system with the state of the display of the
`second computer system. This includes user interface
`objects, and applications running in the target, etc. The
`language further comprises a third set of instructions,
`the third set of instructions causing the ?rst computer
`system to issue a sequence of commands to the second
`computer system to respond in a prede?ned manner.
`These instructions indicate that the target computer
`system is to respond in within a given period of time,
`listen for further commands, etc. The preferred embodi
`ment therefore allows a user to generate a test “script”
`or command language program which de?nes a series
`of tests which may be performed on the target com
`puter. This is useful for repeatable and systematic test
`ing of computer systems having a variety of hardware
`and software combinations for compatibility testing.
`Faults in the system(s) may be isolated, thus allowing
`corrective measures to be taken. This is a distinct im
`provement over prior art manual testing by individual
`testers.
`These and other objects of the present invention are
`provided for by an interpretive language capable of
`25
`being interpreted by a ?rst computer system (a “host”)
`to cause a second computer system to perform speci?ed
`actions. The language includes a ?rst set of descriptors
`which de?ne abstractions of user interface objects on
`the second computer system (the “target”) and a ?rst set
`of commands which direct emulated user actions to be
`performed on the user interface objects in the second
`computer system. The system also includes a second set
`of commands which request information regarding the
`user interface objects in the second computer system.
`The information is in the form of abstractions of the user
`interface objects and avoids transmitting bitmap images
`of the target computer system to the host computer
`system so that the abstractions may be checked against
`40
`expected results. Therefore, repeatable and systematic
`testing of computer systems may be accomplished.
`These and other objects of the present invention are
`further provided for a system for testing computer sys
`tems which comprises a ?rst target computer system
`having a ?rst hardware/software combination and a
`second target computer system having a second hard
`ware/software combination. A host computer system
`comprises means for directing a ?rst thread to control
`the actions of the ?rst target computer system using a
`?rst sequence of instructions and a second thread to
`control the actions of the second target computer sys
`tem using a second sequence of instructions indepen
`dent of the ?rst target computer system. Thus, multiple
`computers having different hardware/software combi
`nations may be tested using different test script routines
`using different processes (“threads”) in the host com
`puter system. The ?rst and second sequences of instruc
`tions (the test “scripts”) emulate user activity on the
`?rst and second target computer systems and cause the
`?rst and second computer systems to report the state of
`user interface objects on displays coupled to the ?rst
`and second computer systems. Therefore, the results of
`emulated user activity may be tested for. A means for
`65
`communicating, such as a local area network, couples
`the host computer system to the ?rst and second target
`computer systems.
`
`0
`
`5
`
`Coupling of the Preferred Embodiment—-FIG. 1
`The preferred embodiment is a testing environment
`wherein a “host” computer system issues commands to
`“target” computer systems, the target computer sys
`tems returning the results of those operations back to
`the host. The coupling of the systems in the preferred
`embodiment is graphically represented with reference
`to FIG. 1. For instance, on a network such as 110
`shown in FIG. 1, a host 100 may be coupled to the
`network for communication with various target ma—
`chines such as 121 through 125. The host computer
`system 100 communicates with each of target machines
`121 through 125 over network 110 for instructing the
`targets to perform various tasks. Each of the target
`
`014
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`5,410,681
`5
`machines 121 through 125 can communicate over net
`work 110 for providing results of those tasks back to
`host 100 when host 100 initiates a communication. In a
`preferred embodiment, host 100 and target machines
`121 through 125 are members of the Macintosh brand
`family of personal computers manufactured by Apple
`Computer, Inc. of Cupertino, Calif. In a preferred em
`bodiment, network 110 is the Appletalk brand local area
`network (LAN). It will be appreciated by one skilled in
`the art, however, that any type of machine which has a
`network capability may communicate with other ma
`chines in a network such as 110 in a similar manner.
`Network 110 may be one of the other types of LAN’s
`commercially available in the market, such as Ethernet,
`a token ring, or a star LAN system in alternative em
`bodiments.
`The preferred embodiment is a system in which tasks
`are described in a high level script or command lan
`guage interpreted and executed by host machine 100.
`On the basis of the commands written in this script
`language, host machine 100 directs target machines 121
`through 125 to perform certain actions and respond to
`the host with the results of those actions. Communica
`tion is provided in a manner well-known to those skilled
`in the art, between host 100 and targets 121 through 125
`using Appletalk brand network protocols (for instance,
`the Appletalk Transaction Protocol or ATP) such as
`those referred to in the publication “Inside Appletalk,
`Second Edition” by Gursharan E. Sidhu, Richard F.
`Andrews, and Alan B. Oppenheimer (1990) available
`from Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. (here
`inafter “Inside Appletalk”). The majority of the under
`lying host and target programs (known as the “host”
`and “agen ” respectively) of the preferred embodiment "
`is written in the C+ + programming language and
`compiled using the MPW C+ + compilation tools
`available from Apple Computer, Inc. of Cupertino,
`Calif. Portions are implemented in 680><0 assembly
`language. It can be appreciated by one skilled in the art
`that any other type of high level language, such as
`FORTRAN, Pascal, or low level language such as
`assembly language, may be used to implement the sys
`tem in alternative embodiments.
`The architecture of the preferred embodiment is
`45
`based on a theater metaphor. Each individual test which
`is written for target machines such as 121 through 125
`shown in FIG. 1 is executed by “actors” or subtasks in
`the host. Each of the actors plays different roles, per
`forming different tests by interpreting and executing
`actions indicated by di?'erent “scripts” (command lan
`guage routines) for target machines coupled to network
`110. There is also a “director” in the system of the
`preferred embodiment which stages, oversees, and di
`rects the test execution of each of the actors. An actor
`may be any entity that plays a role in a testing process.
`The most common types of actors which are used in the
`preferred embodiment are those which emulate user
`action in the target system. Other actors which are
`contemplated within the spirit and scope of the pre
`60
`ferred embodiment are those which include a human
`tester entering commands on the keyboard directly on
`each of the target machines, or any external functions
`which can communicate with the director or the actors
`running the tests. Each of the actors runs as an indepen
`dent task in a multitasking mode along with the direc
`tor. Actors in the system of the preferred embodiment
`are different processes or “threads” which are con
`
`65
`
`55
`
`6
`trolled by the script associated with the actor and the
`director.
`Because each of the target machines 121 through 125
`may be different models of the same computer system
`with different hardware and/or software con?gura
`tions, it is possible to test computer software on each of
`the systems using the same set of tests, but in different
`hardware/software environments. Therefore, compati
`bility testing of the program with various con?gura
`tions of hardware and software may be performed. In
`addition, the preferred embodiment provides for rigor
`ous repetitive testing of each of the target machines
`using the scripts for each of the actors. Therefore, faults
`may be detected from multiple iterations of a script,
`wherein a manual testing of individual machines may
`not otherwise uncover such ?aws.
`The system of the preferred embodiment comprises
`two major components: the host system, and the target
`system(s). The host system provides all the “acting” and
`“directing” functions as described above. The host in~
`terprets the scripts and issues commands to the target
`machines to perform emulated user operations based on
`those scripts. Also, the host issues queries to determine
`the state of the target machines and receives messages
`from the target machines responding with the requested
`information. In this manner, various user actions may be
`emulated on the target machines and the results exam
`ined by the host for faults. The target machines receive
`the messages transmitted by the host, perform the ac
`tion as if a user was operating the target machine, and
`sample certain data structures within the target machine
`reporting back to the host machine to indicate whether
`given operations were successful or not. These func
`tions will be discussed in more detail below. The pro
`gram running on the target machine, known as an
`“agent”, is installed on the target machine in a prede
`?ned directory (the “System Folder” in the Macintosh ’
`brand operating system) so that it will be recognized
`and loaded during power up initialization of the target
`machine. In the Macintosh brand operating environ
`ment, the agent program is loaded into the central pro
`cessing unit as an initialization routine known as an
`“INIT” or “system extension.” In alternative embodi
`ments on IBM PC brand compatible computer systems,
`such a routine may be loaded as a “TSR” (“terminate
`and stay residen ”) program which resides in the mem
`ory of the target system and performs given actions as
`directed by the host.
`
`Command Line Invocation
`The host machine operates in two modes for initiating
`execution of scripts via actors onto target machines: a
`command line mode; or an interactive window interface
`controlled mode. The command line scheme may be
`used to launch actors in the preferred embodiment using
`a command line such as:
`vu-a “Actor1”-t “*:TargetMac”-s Script.vu
`which starts the actor thread ”Actor1” in the host to
`control the target machine “TargetMac” using the
`script “Script.vu.” Each of the parameters in the above
`example command line are de?ned as follows. The “-a”
`option speci?es the name of the actor. This name is an
`alphanumeric string. From that point on, the test run
`ning on the target machine may be referred ‘to by this
`string. So, in the example given above, the test running
`on the target machine may be referred to as the process
`“Actorl.” This may be used for checking the results of
`given tests, or performing single line commands. The
`
`015
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`8
`-p <patience setting>: This option is used to set the
`overall execution speed of the actor (and therefore
`commands) on the target machine. Actions get
`slower as patience increases. The default setting for
`patience is one.
`-fail < n >: This command is used to specify the maxi
`mum number of command failures that are to be
`allowed in the course of script execution. If the
`number of failures exceeds <n>, script execution
`will abort. The default setting is in?nite, so script
`execution will not stop until the script has been
`completed or the user aborts execution.
`-timeout <t>: This option is used to set the maxi
`mum time to wait for a transaction with a target
`machine to complete. If the transaction fails to
`complete within <t>, then the transaction is con
`sidered to have failed. The default setting is 20. The
`maximum value is 255.
`-retries < r>: This sets the maximum number of times
`the actor retries a transaction with the target ma
`chine. The default setting is 3. The maximum num
`ber is 255. If 255 is given, in the preferred embodi
`ment, the number of retries will be considered to be
`in?nite. When this occurs, the actor will keep try
`ing to reaquire the target.
`-cs: This makes the actors string matching case sensi
`tive. The default for this setting is that string
`matching is not case sensitive. For instance, in
`default operating mode, “USER” and “user”
`would be considered the same entity by an actor,
`but would not be the same when the “-cs” option is
`used.
`-
`
`0
`
`25
`
`5,410,681
`7
`option indicates the target address of the target
`machine. In this case, the target is “*zTargetMac.” The
`target name is speci?ed in the following format:
`“<zone>: <target user name>.” The “*” as used in
`the Appletalk brand networking system, is the current
`zone that the host machine resides in. Further, the tar
`get user name, in this case, “TargetMac” is the second
`?eld. The speci?cation of named entities in networks
`such as zones and user names are discussed in more
`detail in the publication “Inside Appletalk,” at pages 7-1
`to 8-24. It will be appreciated by one skilled in the art
`that other types of networking systems may be used in
`alternative embodiments which use unique network
`addresses or names for target machines. In an alterna
`tive embodiment, the network path name may be re
`placed with the Internet address of the target machine.
`This address will be of the form “ <network number>:
`<note I.D.>: <socket number>.”
`The “-s” option, as shown on the command line
`above, is used for indicating the name of the script (or
`20
`command) ?le to be executed on the target machine by
`the actor. Script ?les contain a sequence of instructions
`which cause actions to occur on the target machine for
`either causing speci?c user actions to be emulated,
`checking the state of the target machine, or performing
`other functions such as modifying variables within the
`script ?le (for example, error counts) for performance
`of the test. Script ?les will be discussed in more detail
`below.
`Other options which may be speci?ed on the “vu”
`command line include the following:
`-c: This option indicates compile only. It is used for
`checking the syntax of the script fle without exe
`cuting it. Error messages are reported to the user of '
`the host using the standard output ?le (for instance,
`35
`the display). Using this option does not require the
`user to specify a target machine.
`-1 <log ?le name>: This is used for specifying the
`name of a log ?le. Any output messages from the
`script ?le which would normally go to the standard
`output ?le of the host (such as the display) or error
`warning messages will be placed into the ?le enti
`tled <log ?le name> on the host.
`-dt: This option indicates that a diagnostic trace is to
`be performed when executing the script ?le. This
`45
`option may only be used when a log ?le has been
`speci?ed using the -1 option discussed above. Any
`errors or other warning messages will be placed
`into the ?le speci?ed by the -1 option.
`-0 <output ?le name>: This option is used to redi
`rect the output of print or display statements from
`the standard output ?le (typically the display) to a
`speci?ed fle. This may be used for redirecting the
`output of individual actors to speci?ed ?les. There
`fore, separate ?les may be maintained as outputs for
`separate actors.
`-m <mouse speed>: This option is used to specify
`the speed of a mouse movement on the target ma
`chine. A mouse moves in prede?ned time intervals
`known as steps. <mouse speed> speci?es the
`number of pixels that the mouse will move in each
`step on the target machine. If all mouse movements
`are desired by the user to be moved in onestep, the
`speed should be set to zero. The default setting for
`the speed is 50.
`-k <key stroke rate>: This option is used to set the
`maximum rate of keystrokes on the target machine
`in characters per second. The default setting is 20.
`
`-libs <search path>: This is used to specify the path
`or the directories in which the host is to access task
`libraries. The system of