Advertisement

Requirements Engineering

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 175–198 | Cite as

Features meet scenarios: modeling and consistency-checking scenario-based product line specifications

  • Joel Greenyer
  • Amir Molzam Sharifloo
  • Maxime Cordy
  • Patrick Heymans
RE 2012

Abstract

Many modern software-intensive systems consist of multiple components interacting together to deliver the intended functionality. Often, these systems come in many variants (products) and are managed together as a software product line. This variability is the source of additional complexity which can cause inconsistencies and offset the economies of scale promised by product line engineering. Engineers thus need intuitive, yet precise means for specifying requirements and require tools for automatically detecting inconsistencies within these requirements. In recent work, we proposed a technique for the scenario-based specification of interactions in product lines by a combination of Modal Sequence Diagrams and Feature Diagrams. Furthermore, we elaborated an efficient consistency-checking technique based on a dedicated model-checking approach especially tailored for product lines. In this paper, we report on further evaluations that underline significant performance benefits of our approach. We describe further optimizations and detail on how we encode the consistency-checking problem for a model-checker.

Keywords

Scenario-based specification Product lines Feature compositions Consistency 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by the European Commission, Programme IDEAS-ERC, Project 227977 SMScom, and by the Fund for Scientific Research—FNRS in Belgium, Project FC 91490. We thank the Collaborative Research Center 614 at the University of Paderborn for providing the infrastructure for our experiments, and especially Jürgen Maniera for the technical support.

References

  1. 1.
    UML 2.4.1 Superstructure Specification (2011) OMG document formal/2011-08-06 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abadi M, Lamport L, Wolper P (1989) Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In: Proceedings of the 16th international colloquium on automata, languages and programming, ICALP ’89. Springer, London, pp 1–17. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=646243.681448
  3. 3.
    Alférez M, Lopez-Herrejon RE, Moreira A, Amaral V, Egyed A (2011) Supporting consistency checking between features and software product line use scenarios. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on top productivity through software reuse, ICSR’11. Springer, Berlin, pp 20–35Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bontemps Y, Heymans P (2005) From live sequence charts to state machines and back: a guided tour. Trans Softw Eng 31(12):999–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cimatti A, Clarke E, Giunchiglia E, Giunchiglia F, Pistore M, Roveri M, Sebastiani R, Tacchella A (2002) NuSMV version 2: an opensource tool for symbolic model checking. In: Proceedings of international conference on computer-aided verification (CAV 2002), LNCS, vol 2404. Springer, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke EM, Emerson EA (1981) Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching-time temporal logic. In: Logic of programs, LNCS, vol 131, pp 52–71. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Classen A, Heymans P, Schobbens PY, Legay A (2011) Symbolic model checking of software product lines. In: Proceedings of 33rd international conference on software engineering (ICSE’11). ACM, pp 321–330Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Classen A, Heymans P, Schobbens PY, Legay A, Raskin JF (2010) Model checking lots of systems: efficient verification of temporal properties in software product lines. In: Proceedings of 32nd international conference on software engineering (ICSE’10), ICSE’10. ACM, pp 335–344. doi: 10.1145/1806799.1806850
  9. 9.
    Cordy M, Classen A, Perrouin G, Heymans P, Schobbens PY, Legay A (2012) Simulation-based abstractions for software product-line model checking. In: ICSE’12, pp 672–682. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Damas C, Lambeau B, van Lamsweerde A (2006) Scenarios, goals, and state machines: a win-win partnership for model synthesis. In: Proceedings 14th international symposium on foundations of software engineering, SIGSOFT ’06/FSE-14. ACM, New York, pp 197–207. doi: 10.1145/1181775.1181800
  11. 11.
    Damm W, Harel D (2001) LSCs: breathing life into message sequence charts. In: Formal methods in system design, vol 19. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 45–80Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frieben J, Greenyer J (2012) Consistency checking scenario-based specifications of dynamic systems. In: Proceedings of 4th workshop on behavioural modelling: foundations and application (BM-FA 2012). ACMGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghezzi C, Molzam Sharifloo A (2012) Model-based verification of quantitative non-functional properties for software product lines. Information and software technology. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2012.07.017
  14. 14.
    Greenyer J (2011) Scenario-based design of mechatronic systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of PaderbornGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greenyer J, Sharifloo AM, Cordy M, Heymans P (2012) Efficient consistency checking of scenario-based product line specifications. In: Proceedings of 30th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE 2012, September 24–28, 2012, Chicago, pp 161–170Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harel D, Kugler H (2002) Synthesizing state-based object systems from LSC specifications. In: Foundations of Computer Science vol. 13:1, pp 5–51Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harel D, Kugler H, Marelly R, Pnueli A (2002) Smart play-out of behavioral requirements. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on formal methods in computer-aided design, FMCAD ’02. Springer, London, pp 378–398Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harel D, Kugler H, Pnueli A (2005) Synthesis revisited: generating statechart models from scenario-based requirements. In: Kreowski HJ, Montanari U, Orejas F, Rozenberg G, Taentzer G (eds) Formal methods in software and systems modeling vol 3393. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harel D, Maoz S (2008) Assert and negate revisited: modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams. Softw Syst Model (SoSyM) 7(2):237–252. doi: 10.1007/s10270-007-0054-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harel D, Marelly R (2002) Specifying and executing behavioral requirements: the Play-In/Play-Out approach. Softw Syst Model (SoSyM) 2:2003Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harel D, Marelly R (2003) Come, let’s play: scenario-based programming using LSCs and the play-engine. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harhurin A, Hartmann J (2008) Towards consistent specifications of product families. In: Proceedings of 15th international symposium on formal methods, FM ’08. Springer, Berlin, pp 390–405. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-68237-0_27
  23. 23.
    Jayaraman P, Whittle J, Elkhodary A, Gomaa H (2007) Model composition in product lines and feature interaction detection using critical pair analysis. In: Engels G, Opdyke B, Schmidt D, Weil F (eds) Model driven engineering languages and systems LNCS vol 4735. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kang K, Cohen SG, Hess JA, Novak WE, Peterson AS (1990) Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical repot software engineering institute, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lauenroth K, Pohl K (2008) Dynamic consistency checking of domain requirements in product line engineering. In: International requirements engineering, 2008. RE ’08. 16th IEEE, pp 193–202. doi: 10.1109/RE.2008.21
  26. 26.
    Maoz S, Harel D (2006) From multi-modal scenarios to code: Compiling LSCs into AspectJ. In: Proceedings of international symposium on foundations of software engineering (FSE’05), pp 219–230Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plath M, Ryan M (2001) Feature integration using a feature construct. Sci Comput Program 41(1):53–84zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pohl K, Böckle G, van der Linden FJ (2005) Software product line engineering: foundations, principles and techniques. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Possomps T, Dony C, Huchard M, Tibermacine C (2011) Design of a UML profile for feature diagrams and its tooling implementation. In: Proceedings of 23rd international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE’11). Knowledge Systems Institute Graduate School, pp 693–698Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schobbens PY, Heymans P, Trigaux JC (2006) Feature diagrams: a survey and a formal semantics. In: 14th International conference requirements engineering, pp 139–148. doi: 10.1109/RE.2006.23
  31. 31.
    Shaker P, Atlee JM, Wang S (2012) A feature-oriented requirements modelling language. In: Proceedings of 30th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE 2012, September 24–28, 2012, Chicago, Illinois, USA, pp 151–160Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vierhauser M, Grünbacher P, Egyed A, Rabiser R, Heider W Flexible and scalable consistency checking on product line variability models. In: Proceedings of international conference on automated software engineering (ASE’10). ACM, pp 63–72Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Whittle J, Schumann J (2000) Generating statechart designs from scenarios. In: Proceedings of 22nd international conference on software engineering (ICSE’00), pp 314–323Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ziadi T, Hlout L, Jzquel JM (2004) Behaviors generation from product lines requirements. In: Proceedings of UML2004 workshop on software architecture descriptionGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel Greenyer
    • 1
  • Amir Molzam Sharifloo
    • 1
  • Maxime Cordy
    • 2
  • Patrick Heymans
    • 2
  1. 1.Dependable Evolvable Pervasive Software Engineering, Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.PReCISE Research CenterUniversity of NamurNamurBelgium

Personalised recommendations