Computing repair trees for resolving inconsistencies in design models

Reder, Alexander; Egyed, Alexander

doi:10.1145/2351676.2351707

Cited by 52 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, previous work [5] has shown that independent of the model size, there are on average only 12 possible repairs per inconsistency 3 (see Figure 3). Thus, it is inefficient to enumerate through (e.g.)…”

Section: Repair Generation Approachmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…We propose here a more efficient approach which generates the exact repair(s) for each inconsistency by analyzing the structure of a consistency constraint and its expected and observed validation results (through observing the constraint's validation) to determine exactly which parts of the inconsistency must be repaired. In the following we briefly outline the approach presented in [5] and explain how this approach has been extended to be able to make repair actions concrete (i.e. a concrete value is known).…”

Section: Repair Generation Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resolving inconsistencies however is much more difficult than detecting them since the number of alternative repairs increases exponentially with the complexity of the consistency rule and the number of model element accessed [5]. While previous work has shown that abstract repairs (which merely identify the model elements that require repairing) are reasonably localized and scalable to compute, concrete repairs (which identify all possible ways of repairing a given model element) are often infinitely large.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We extend previous work [5] in such a way that concrete repairs (i.e. a concrete value is known) for an inconsistency are automatically generated and actual side effects are computed (as opposed to abstract repairs as in [5]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…a concrete value is known) for an inconsistency are automatically generated and actual side effects are computed (as opposed to abstract repairs as in [5]). Our approach generates complete and correct repair options for an inconsistency since it analyzes the structure of an inconsistency (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Inconsistency Resolution in Merging Versions of Architectural Models

Dam

Reder

Egyed

2014

2014 IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-State-of-the-art optimistic model versioning systems, which are critical to enable efficient team-based development of architectural models, are able to detect and help resolve basic conflicts arising during the merging of model versions. However, it is often overlooked that model merging may also cause severe syntactical and semantic inconsistencies. In this paper, we propose an approach to guide the resolution of inconsistencies detected in a merged architectural model. Our approach automatically finds and presents to the software architects all solutions for resolving all inconsistencies arisen during the merging of model versions. For inconsistencies that preexist in the model, our approach is able to suggest exactly which model elements should be changed to resolve them. Our approach is built upon a repair generation which can quickly derive resolutions for an inconsistency by examining its static and dynamic structure and forming concrete repair actions from changes in the versions to be merged. An empirical validation on a range of industrial models has demonstrated that our approach is scalable to both large models and large differences between model versions.

show abstract

Section: Repair Generation Approachmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Repair Generation Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Inconsistency Resolution in Merging Versions of Architectural Models

Dam

Reder

Egyed

2014

2014 IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reusing process patterns in software process models modification

Hachemi

Mohamed

2018

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Process patterns offer proven solutions to reuse in process modeling. This reuse can take many forms; however, we are particularly interested in the form where patterns are merged with already existing process models to enrich or to correct them to satisfy certain constraints or to increase their efficiency.We aim through the present work to propose an approach that proceeds the merging automatically. The difficulty is that some conflicts may arise between the pattern being reused and the model being modified, resulting in an incoherent process model. We start this work by studying possible conflicts (especially that of first order), which can be encountered when merging, and then we propose an algorithm ensuring the automatic reuse and managing these conflicts. We highlight through a comparison the benefits of our proposal.The difficulty of patterns reuse to modify existing models gives rise to very few works in the literature. Our approach aims to offer a possible solution that ensures conflicts management.Automating such form of reuse will enhance patterns exploitation within the software community, as well as it will open many perspectives based on process models merging. KEYWORDSfirst-order conflict, model merging, pattern reuse, process model, process pattern 1 | INTRODUCTION Software products are becoming more and more rich and complex, and their use reaches more and more areas. The trend was summarized succinctly in Andreessen 1 : software is eating the world. The dual challenge of software engineering is that of quality and productivity. This creates a context where software patterns emerge as a powerful mean, offering reusable proven solutions to overcome these challenges. The scale of published patterns is however reaching a point where the need for tools to find, understand, and apply patterns becomes a critical requirement. 2 Among software patterns there are process patterns. The concept of process pattern was first introduced by Coplien 3 at the 1994 PLoP conference, 4-7 in the sense of patterns that capture process knowledge. Later, Ambler 8 defines a process pattern as follows: describing a proven, successful approach and/or series of actions for developing software.It is known in software engineering that to improve the developed product it is important to master its development process. [9][10][11] This leads the concept of process model to appear, such model is a detailed representation of software development real-world activities, using a process modeling language. Thus, "methods and processes along with the tools supporting them are at the heart of software engineering." 12 Besides, process improvement is nowadays a challenge to improve software quality and productivity, 13 and even small companies are interested in process models to keep up their competitiveness by improving their products quality. 14 Consequently, process patterns as they concern process models became relevant elements in software engineering. In the present work, we are interested in process patterns, which are called in...

show abstract

Ranking guidance actions to support engineers in fulfilling process constraints

Bilal,

Mayr‐Dorn,

Egyed

2024

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In safety‐critical systems engineering, regulations such as Automotive SPICE, ISO26262, or ED‐109A mandate software quality assurance measures to provide evidence that the developed system is high quality. The constraints that define quality assurance conditions during the engineering life cycle are often non‐trivial. This paper addresses the challenges, engineers face who are unfamiliar with the precise constraints of various projects (e.g., when newly joining a company or switching between departments). Understanding how to fulfill a constraint is a time‐consuming and challenging task as an engineer needs to determine the most suitable option (out of potentially many) to fulfill a constraint violation. To this end, we propose a guidance action ranking framework to provide engineers with the most relevant guidance actions. Our primary ranking algorithm analyzes in the background the actions that engineers have made in the past to resolve a constraint violation without requiring explicit feedback from them. We evaluated our framework on two real‐world data sets: an open‐source drone management and an industrial air traffic control software system. Concretely, we replay past engineering activities and measured whether, in the case of a constraint violation, our suggested guidance actions were indeed selected by the engineer. The evaluation results revealed that learning from prior guidance actions effectively identifies the most appropriate guidance actions (ranked top 1 or 2) when compared to ranking algorithms based on action simplicity and artifact property change frequency. Specifically, we achieve a median MRR of 0.95 for the first case study and 0.94 for the second case study: an improvement of 80% and 100% over the baseline. Additionally, we observed that the simplicity of a guidance action does not reliably indicate its suitability for fulfilling a constraint, whereas learning from prior change operation property out‐performed simplicity‐based ranking but did not surpass guidance frequency‐based ranking.

show abstract

Computing repair trees for resolving inconsistencies in design models

Cited by 52 publications

References 21 publications

Inconsistency Resolution in Merging Versions of Architectural Models

Inconsistency Resolution in Merging Versions of Architectural Models

Reusing process patterns in software process models modification

Ranking guidance actions to support engineers in fulfilling process constraints

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About