Scheduler-Integrated Regression: Coupling Batch Job Orchestration with Automated Data Comparison
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15662/IJEETR.2022.0403007Keywords:
Batch Job Scheduling, Automated Regression Testing, Data Comparison, Workflow Orchestration, Test Automation, Data Validation, Continuous IntegrationAbstract
Batch processing remains the backbone of enterprise data operations, moving the bulk of financial, operational, and analytical data through scheduled jobs that run overnight, intraday, or on event triggers. For decades, the orchestration of these jobs, deciding when a job runs, what it depends on, and what happens if it fails, has been treated as a concern entirely separate from the question of whether the job produced correct output. Job schedulers answer the first question. Data quality and regression testing tools, when they exist at all, typically answer the second question long after the job has already completed and downstream consumers have already acted on the result.
This article presents an approach that closes that gap by coupling batch job orchestration directly with automated data comparison, a pattern this article refers to as scheduler-integrated regression. Rather than treating regression testing as a separate activity performed on a different cadence by a different team, the approach embeds comparison logic as a native step inside the orchestration graph itself, so that every job run is automatically checked against an expected baseline before its output is allowed to propagate downstream. The approach draws on established practice in continuous testing, workload automation, and data quality management to construct a pattern that is practical for enterprise batch environments rather than purely for software release pipelines
The article is organized into twelve sections, moving from the industry context that motivates this pattern, through a conceptual framework and technical architecture, a set of data comparison methodologies, integration patterns with common scheduler categories, an implementation roadmap, benchmarking data, and a quantitative analysis of the operational and financial case for adoption. It closes with implementation challenges and a forward looking view of where this pattern is headed
References
[1] Gartner. Market Guide for Workload Automation. 2020.
[2] Forrester Research. The State of Continuous Testing. 2021.
[3] DevOps Research and Assessment. Accelerate: State of DevOps Report. 2019.
[4] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Software Engineering for Data Intensive Systems: A Survey. 2020.
[5] McKinsey and Company. Breaking Through Data Friction in Enterprise Operations. 2021.
[6] Deloitte. Tech Trends: Intelligent Automation in the Enterprise. 2021.
[7] PwC. Digital Operations Study: Continuous Verification in Data Pipelines. 2020.
[8] Celent. Automation in Batch Processing Environments. 2019.
[9] ISACA. IT Control Objectives for Data Integrity. 2018.
[10] Agile Alliance. Continuous Testing Patterns for Data Pipelines. 2020.
[11] Association for Computing Machinery. Automated Regression Testing at Scale: A Survey. 2021.
[12] National Institute of Standards and Technology. Guide to Software Verification and Validation. Special Publication, 2019.
[13] Gartner. Hype Cycle for Data Management. 2021.
[14] World Economic Forum. Future of Jobs and Automation in Financial Operations. 2020.
[15] Boston Consulting Group. Operational Resilience Through Automation. 2021.
[16] Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. DevSecOps and Continuous Verification Practices. 2020.
[17] International Organization for Standardization. ISO IEC 25012, Data Quality Model. 2018.





