Product-line verification with feature-oriented contracts

Thüm, Thomas

doi:10.1145/2483760.2492396

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While this is an effective way to implement variability, code, and feature traceability, as well as modularity are poorly supported or even unintended. () Furthermore, type‐checking all possible configurations of a product line is challenging for the annotation‐based implementations. ()…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Composing annotations without regret? Practical experiences using FeatureC

Krüger

Pinnecke

Kenner³

et al. 2017

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software product lines enable developers to derive similar products from a common code base. Existing implementation techniques can be categorized as composition-based and annotation-based approaches, with both approaches promising complementary benefits. However, annotation-based approaches are commonly used in practice despite composition allowing physical separation of features and, thus, improving traceability and maintenance. A main hindrance to migrate annotated systems toward a composition-based product line is the challenging and time-consuming transformation task. For a company, it is difficult to predict the corresponding costs, and a successful outcome is uncertain. To overcome such problems, a solution proposed by the previous work is to use a hybrid approach, utilizing composition and annotation simultaneously. Based on this idea, we introduce a stepwise migration process from annotation-based toward composition-based approaches to lower the adoption barrier of composition. This process itself is independent of used implementation techniques and enables developers to incrementally migrate toward composition. We support our approach with detailed examples by partially migrating a real-world system.In detail, we describe the following: (1) our migration process, (2) its application on a real-world system, and (3) discuss practical challenges we face. We implemented the proposed approach and show that appropriate tool support helps to migrate toward composition-based product lines. Based on the case study, we show that the hybrid product lines work correctly and can compete with the performance of the original annotated system. However, the results also illustrate open issues that have to be solved to apply such migrations in practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Composing annotations without regret? Practical experiences using FeatureC

Krüger

Pinnecke

Kenner³

et al. 2017

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This facilitates traceability and maintenance but also poses new challenges. For example, analysing and testing become more challenging, due to the complexity and separation of code . Existing composition‐based approaches rely on the same concepts but differ in implementation details compared with feature‐oriented programming.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This facilitates traceability and maintenance [12,29,30] but also poses new challenges. For example, analysing and testing become more challenging, due to the complexity and separation of code [12,31]. Existing composition-based approaches rely on the same concepts but differ in implementation details compared with feature-oriented programming.In Figure 1, we show an example for feature-oriented programming using FeatureHouse [23,32], a tool to compose the corresponding source code.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mutation operators for feature‐oriented software product lines

Krüger

Al-Hajjaji

Leich

et al. 2018

Software Testing Verif & Rel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Mutation testing is an approach to assess the quality of test cases. Mutants are modified versions of a system that ideally compose faulty behaviour. Test cases for a system are effective if they kill these mutants. For software product lines, several works have addressed mutation testing to inject variability faults, which may only exist in some variants. These works focus on variability models or specific implementation techniques. In contrast, feature‐oriented programming has been rarely investigated, wherefore, we (1) derive corresponding mutation operators, (2) investigate the feasibility of our proposed and conventional operators on 4 software product lines, and (3) discuss open challenges in mutation testing of software product lines. The results show that our proposed operators are suitable to cause variability faults and extend the capabilities of conventional operators. Nonetheless, mutation testing of software product lines is comparably expensive, due to a high number of variants and mutants—resulting in equivalence and redundancy.

show abstract

Composition of proof-carrying architectures for cyber-physical systems

McGee

McGregor

2015

Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Product-line verification with feature-oriented contracts

Cited by 3 publications

References 25 publications

Composing annotations without regret? Practical experiences using FeatureC

Composing annotations without regret? Practical experiences using FeatureC

Mutation operators for feature‐oriented software product lines

Composition of proof-carrying architectures for cyber-physical systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About