Checking the Correspondence between UML Models and Implementation

Ciraci, Selim; Malakuti, Somayeh; Katz, Shmuel; Akşit, Mehmet

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16612-9_16

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Li et al [45] use UML sequence diagrams with no alternatives or loops. Ciraci et al [46] explains that the intent is to have such "simplified" scenarios generate a graph of all possible sequences of executions. The difficulty with such strategy is that it generally does not scale up, as demonstrated at length by Briand and Labiche [47] 7 .…”

Section: On Semantics For Acceptance Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traceability in Acceptance Testing

Corriveau¹,

Shi²

2013

JSEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regardless of which (model-centric or code-centric) development process is adopted, industrial software production ultimately and necessarily requires the delivery of an executable implementation. It is generally accepted that the quality of such an implementation is of utmost importance. Yet current verification techniques, including software testing, remain problematic. In this paper, we focus on acceptance testing, that is, on the validation of the actual behavior of the implementation under test against the requirements of stakeholder(s). This task must be as objective and automated as possible. Our first goal is to review existing code-based and model-based tools for testing in light of what such an objective and automated approach to acceptance testing entails. Our contention is that the difficulties we identify originate mainly in a lack of traceability between a testable model of the requirements of the stakeholder(s) and the test cases used to validate these requirements. We then investigate whether such traceability is addressed in other relevant specification-based approaches.

show abstract

Section: On Semantics For Acceptance Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traceability in Acceptance Testing

Corriveau¹,

Shi²

2013

JSEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this work focuses on the runtime structure of the architecture and not on the runtime behavior. In [5] the inconsistencies between method flows modeled with sequence diagrams and the implementation are captured. This approach, however, focuses on object-oriented execution details that are not part of architectural models.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Approach for Detecting Inconsistencies between Behavioral Models of the Software Architecture and the Code

Ciraci

Sözer

Tekinerdoğan

2012

2012 IEEE 36th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In practice, inconsistencies between architectural documentation and the code might arise due to improper implementation of the architecture or the separate, uncontrolled evolution of the code. Several approaches have been proposed to detect inconsistencies between the architecture and the code but these tend to be limited for capturing inconsistencies that might occur at runtime. We present a runtime verification approach for detecting inconsistencies between the dynamic behavior of the documented architecture and the actual runtime behavior of the system. The approach is supported by a set of tools that implement the architecture and the code patterns in Prolog, and automatically generate runtime monitors for detecting inconsistencies. We illustrate the approach and the toolset for a Crisis Management System case study.

show abstract

“…Recently introduced runtime verification techniques are also concerned with the conformance of a concrete implementation with respect to a formal specification. There have been different formalisms and models used, such as regular expressions [19], abstract state machines [20], linear temporal logic [21] and UML models [22]. Regardless of the underlying formalism, the adopted formal specification mainly defines the correct order of events.…”

Section: Background: Formal Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%