Metrics to Measure the Change Impact in ATL Model Transformations

Vieira, Andreza; Ramalho, Franklin

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13835-0_18

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Vieira et al [39,40] proposed an impact analysis approach of ATL transformations, but without proposing any co-evolution. Other approaches proposed to co-evolve transformations [1, 9-11, 29, 30].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change Propagation-based and Composition-based Co-evolution of Transformations with Evolving Metamodels

Khelladi

Kretschmer

Egyed

2018

Proceedings of the 21th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transformations constitute significant key components of an automated model-driven engineering solution. As metamodels evolve, model transformations may need to be co-evolved accordingly. A conducted experiment on transformations' co-evolution highlighted the existing gap in the literature where only limited few co-evolution scenarios are covered without supporting alternatives that occur in practice. To make matters worse, when a developer needs to drift apart from the proposed co-evolution, no automatic support is provided to the developer. This paper first proposes a change propagation-based co-evolution of transformations. The premise is that knowledge of the metamodel evolution can be propagated by means of resolutions to drive the transformation coevolution. To deal with particular cases where developers must drift from the proposed resolutions, we introduce a compositionbased mechanism that allows developers to compose resolutions meeting their needs. Our work is evaluated on 14 case studies consisting in original and evolved metamodels and ETL Epsilon transformations. A comparison of our co-evolved transformations with the 14 versioned ones showed the usefulness of our approach that reached an average 96% of correct co-evolution. On three other case studies, our composition-based co-evolution showed to be useful to eight developers in selecting resolutions that best meet their needs. Among the applied resolutions, four developers applied six resolutions that were the direct result of a composition.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change Propagation-based and Composition-based Co-evolution of Transformations with Evolving Metamodels

Khelladi

Kretschmer

Egyed

2018

Proceedings of the 21th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we will explain in Section 11.2, most of the related works [3,2,1,33,31,71,104,105,129,149,152] require translating the input model into a formalism where a dynamic and formal verification method (such as a solver, a model checker or a theorem prover) is available. Only few works [100,178,179] use static analysis to verify the models.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, in the UML context, there are works focusing on verifying statechart diagrams [104,105,129], sequence diagrams [74], activity diagrams [3,1,22,59], operations [33,70,149], xUML models [75,185], or on verifying the consistent interrelationship between them [2,44,71], among others. On the other hand, in the model transformation context, there are also works focusing on the verification of M2M transformations described by means of QVT [178,8], ATL [178,179], Xtend [178], or graph transformation rules [31,152], among others.…”

Section: Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides the correctness properties studied along this thesis, an extensive list of additional properties over behavioural models has been studied. For instance, there are works focusing on checking properties such as: deadlocks-free [3,22,105,129], livelocks-free [22,105,129], safety [74,75,104], liveness [22,74,104], applicability [33], consistency [2,71], or domain-specific properties [8,152,179,185], among others.…”

Section: Other Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this property should be redefined for each domain. Similarly, Vieira et al [179] provide an API to manipulate ATL [94] transformation elements in order to assist the designer during the inspection of the model transformations. On the other hand, Vallecillo et al [176] propose a testing based method to check the correctness of ATL transformations.…”

Section: Verification Of M2m Transformationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lightweight and static verification of UML executable models

Planas Hortal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executable models play a key role in many development methods (such as MDD and MDA) by facilitating the immediate simulation/implementation of the software system under development. This is possible because executable models include a fine-grained specification of the system behaviour using an action language. Executable models are not a new concept but are now experiencing a comeback. As a relevant example, the OMG has recently published the first version of the “Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models” (fUML) standard, an executable subset of the UML that can be used to define, in an operational style, the structural and behavioural semantics of systems. The OMG has also published a beta version of the “Action Language for fUML” (Alf) standard, a concrete syntax conforming to the fUML abstract syntax, that provides the constructs and textual notation to specify the fine-grained behaviour of systems. The OMG support to executable models is substantially raising the interest of software companies for this topic. Given the increasing importance of executable models and the impact of their correctness on the final quality of software systems derived from them, the existence of methods to verify the correctness of executable models is becoming crucial. Otherwise, the quality of the executable models (and in turn the quality of the final system generated from them) will be compromised. Despite the number of research works targetting the verification of software models, their computational cost and poor feedback makes them difficult to integrate in current software development processes. Therefore, there is the need for efficient and useful methods to check the correctness of executable models and tools integrated to the modelling tools used by designers. In this thesis we propose a verification framework to help the designers to improve the quality of their executable models. Our framework is composed of a set of lightweight static methods, i.e. methods that do not require to execute the model in order to check the desired property. These methods are able to check several properties over the behavioural part of an executable model (for instance, over the set of operations that compose a behavioural executable model) such as syntactic correctness (i.e. all the operations in the behavioural model conform to the syntax of the language in which it is described), non-redundancy (i.e. there is no another operation with exactly the same behaviour), executability (i.e. after the execution of an operation, the reached system state is -in case of strong executability- or may be -in case of weak executability- consistent with the structural model and its integrity constraints) and completeness (i.e. all possible changes on the system state can be performed through the execution of the operations defined in the executable model). For incorrect models, the methods that compose our verification framework return a meaningful feedback that helps repairing the detected inconsistencies.

show abstract