Automated verification of model transformations based on visual contracts

Abstract

Model-Driven Engineering promotes the use of models to conduct the different phases of the software development. In this way, models are transformed between different languages and notations until code is generated for the final application. Hence, the construction of correct Model-to-Model (M2M) transformations becomes a crucial aspect in this approach.Even though many languages and tools have been proposed to build and execute M2M transformations, there is scarce support to specify correctness requirements for such transformations in an implementation-independent way, i.e., irrespective of the actual transformation language used.In this paper we fill this gap by proposing a declarative language for the specification of visual contracts, enabling the verification of transformations defined with any transformation language. The verification is performed by compiling the contracts into QVT to detect disconformities of transformation results with respect to the contracts. As a proof of concept, we also report on a graphical modeling environment for the specification of contracts, and on its use for the verification of transformations in several case studies.

Specification-driven model transformation testing

“…Finally, we draw some conclusions and lines of future work in Section 8. The paper includes an appendix with a formal definition of the core concepts in PaMoMo, originally introduced in [25,26].…”

“…There are other approaches that permit the specification of partial oracle functions as graph patterns or model fragments [1]. Finally, in previous works, we presented our visual language PaMoMo to specify contracts for transformations and provided compilations of this language into OCL [25] and QVT-Relations [26], thus enabling the use of PaMoMo contracts as oracles. None of these approaches provide a mechanism to assert the adequacy of the specified tests and automate their generation.…”

“…The use of a formal specification language such as PaMoMo to specify transformation properties has the following advantages: (i) it enables reasoning on the transformation requirements before their implementation, as well as detecting contradictions in the requirements early in the project [26]; (ii) it provides a highlevel notation to specify pre/postconditions and invariants of the transformations; and (iii) it is possible to automate the generation of an oracle function from the specification and use it for automated testing [25]. However, the challenge of generating input test models satisfying the meta-model constraints and all preconditions in the specification remains, as tests models have to be built by hand, which is a tedious and error-prone task.…”

Evaluating the Usability of Model Transformations Testing Approach (MTTA)

“…Various methods may be used for defining the transformation rules, such as Query View Transformation (QVT) and Atlas Transformation Language (Bézivin et al, 2003) (refer to (Czarnecki and Helsen, 2006) for more detail). Majority of these languages concentrate on the transformation implementations but usually not their verification (Guerra et al, 2013). However, as like other software artifact, models transformations are not free from bugs, therefore they need to be verified (Ab Rahim and Whittle, 2010).…”

“…With regards to the above mention statement, the MDE group demands approaches that can be used for verifying model transformations (Guerra et al, 2013). Different Model Transformation Verification Approaches (MTVAs) are now currently in use for verifying model transformations such as, IMCAT (Ab Rahim and Whittle, 2010), VarroMC (Varró and Pataricza, 2003), StaatsMC (Staats and Heimdahl, 2008), FleureyMT (Fleurey et al, 2004), WangMT (Wang et al, 2006) and MTTA (Fleurey et al, 2007).…”