Towards the Characterization of Realistic Model Generators using Graph Neural Networks

López, José Antonio Hernández; Cuadrado, Jesús

doi:10.1109/models50736.2021.00015

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A primary threat to the validity of the results presented here, is that the measured performance may be particular to the models that were created for the tests, to the kind of model, or to the comparison programs that were proposed. A key challenge identified in MDE research is a lack of publicly accessible real-world models [20]. Although we used both synthetic models in the OO-DB case studies and publicly available models for the class and sequence diagrams one, this can still affect the measured performance benefits.…”

Section: Threats To Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Efficient Model Comparison using Automated Program Rewriting

Ali,

Kolovos,

Barmpis

2023

Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model comparison is a prerequisite task for several other model management tasks such as model merging, model differencing etc. We present a novel approach to efficiently compare models using programs written in a rule-based model comparison language. As the comparison is done at the model element level, and each element needs to be traversed and compared with its corresponding elements, the execution of these comparison algorithms can be computationally expensive for larger models. In this paper, we present an efficient comparison approach which provides an automated rewriting facility to compare (both homogeneous and heterogeneous) models, based on static program analysis. Using this analysis, we reduce the search space by pre-filtering/indexing model elements, before actually comparing them. Moreover, we reorder the comparison match rules according to the dependencies between these rules to reduce the cost of jumping between rules. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed model comparison approach delivers significant performance benefits in terms of execution time compared to the default ECL execution engine.CCS Concepts: • Software and its engineering → Domain specific languages.

show abstract

Section: Threats To Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Efficient Model Comparison using Automated Program Rewriting

Ali,

Kolovos,

Barmpis

2023

Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 3 Computing platform and benchmark parameters used during the performance comparison Fig. 21 Boxes language metamodel in Ecore Both tools perform a three-way model comparison to find differences and conflicts, so they are ideal candidates to determine if the line-based approach used in Peacemaker provides any performance improvements. As for Peacemaker, we included two variants: a sequential one, where the split model versions (see Sect.…”

Section: Compared Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although performing the evaluation using real, third-party models would have been the ideal scenario, shortage of large publicly available real-world models is a widely recognised issue in model-driven engineering research (e.g. [21]). Our motivation for Peacemaker comes from our work with industrial partners [22] where we routinely encounter models containing many thousands of model elements, for which tools such as EMF Compare can take several seconds to perform a full 3-way comparison.…”

Section: Threats To Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

An efficient line-based approach for resolving merge conflicts in XMI-based models

Vega

Kolovos

2022

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflicts in software artefacts can appear during collaborative development through version control systems. When these conflicts happen in XMI models, the conflict sections generated by diff programs break the XMI serialisation and compromise the ability to use model editors that assume well-formedness of this serialisation. While these conflict sections already mark the conflicting lines of the model, current tools for conflict resolution in models ignore them and instead load the different versions of a model from the repository, over which they perform a full and costly comparison that re-identifies the conflicts. We present a novel approach that prevents this repetition of work by directly parsing XMI-based models with conflict sections, which allows for a targeted analysis of only the lines of the model that have been detected to be in conflict by the version control system. We have implemented this approach in the Peacemaker tool, which can load XMI models with conflict sections, compute and display conflicts at the model level, and provide appropriate resolution actions. Compared with state-of-the-art model comparison tools with support for conflict resolution, Peacemaker is able to identify the vast majority of conflicts in models while reducing the required time by up to 60%. The small subset of non-identified conflicts does not introduce issues into the models, e.g. there is no loss of model information, and the resulting models after line-merging these conflicts conform to their metamodels.

show abstract