How a Change Control Platform Automates Inspection, Regression, and Risk Management

1. Introduction

The change control platform integrates most public change systems and business systems, consolidates development‑side change data, makes change events queryable and traceable, and pushes violation events to various platforms for detection.

2. Current Inspection and Regression Capabilities

Currently supports log inspection, slow‑SQL inspection, API inspection, UI automation, API automation, and custom regression platforms. Existing configuration logic is coarse: single‑service focus, simple inspection content, system‑level trigger types only, and UI inspection cannot be bound to target front‑end applications.

3. Inspection‑Regression Configuration Ability

The platform treats a specific change event as the trigger source and allows users to freely pair it with inspection or regression actions, configuring dimensions such as service, environment, and change type.

Key improvements:

Support for strong dependencies (e.g., service A triggering inspection of service B).

Integration with multiple regression platforms expands supported regression methods and inspection types.

Fine‑grained, user‑definable rules covering front‑end releases, back‑end releases, data changes, etc.

4. Usage Scenarios

Examples include:

Triggering log inspection for backend service A when it is released in prod.

Triggering UI automation for front‑end application B after its production release.

Invoking a custom regression suite after a specific service change.

When a dependent service B changes, automatically running inspection for service A.

Cross‑layer triggers, such as backend release causing UI regression of a dependent page.

5. Risk Identification

If inspection or regression results indicate problems, the associated change event is marked as risky, a risk item is created under the change author, and its resolution status is monitored.

6. Result Presentation

In the past month, 138 risk items were created; 29 (21%) were resolved with complete measures, 4 were rejected (33.3% of rejected items), and 63 (45.7%) remain overdue.