Advertisement

Verifying System-Wide Properties of Industrial Component-Based Software

  • Thomas NeeleEmail author
  • Marijn Rol
  • Jan Friso Groote
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11761)

Abstract

Analytical Software Design (ASD) enables model-based development of component software systems. Until now, functional verification of ASD systems is only possible on a per-component basis. There is no functional verification engine for ASD itself, so this verification relies on a translation of individual components to mCRL2, a process-algebraic model checker. We show how to extend the ASD-mCRL2 translation to support multiple components in order to enable checking of system wide functional properties. With our extended translation, we perform a case-study on a newly developed industrial system consisting of 26 communicating components. The results indicate that it is feasible to model check functional properties on this scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Bartholomeus, M., Luttik, B., Willemse, T.: Modelling and analysing ERTMS hybrid level 3 with the mCRL2 toolset. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, pp. 98–114. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00244-2_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Beusekom, R., et al.: Formalising the Dezyne modelling language in mCRL2. In: Petrucci, L., Seceleanu, C., Cavalcanti, A. (eds.) FMICS/AVoCS -2017. LNCS, vol. 10471, pp. 217–233. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67113-0_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broadfoot, G.H.: ASD case notes: costs and benefits of applying formal methods to industrial control software. In: Fitzgerald, J., Hayes, I.J., Tarlecki, A. (eds.) FM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3582, pp. 548–551. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11526841_39CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broadfoot, G.H., Hopcroft, P.J.: Analytical software design. Technical report, Verum Consultants B.V. (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bunte, O., et al.: The mCRL2 toolset for analysing concurrent systems. In: Vojnar, T., Zhang, L. (eds.) TACAS 2019. LNCS, vol. 11428, pp. 21–39. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17465-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cranen, S., Groote, J.F., Reniers, M.A.: A linear translation from CTL* to the first-order modal \(\mu \)-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 412(28), 3129–3139 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2011.02.034MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evrard, H., Lang, F.: Automatic distributed code generation from formal models of asynchronous processes interacting by multiway rendezvous. J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program. 88, 121–153 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlamp.2016.09.002MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2011: a toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes. STTT 15(2), 89–107 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_18CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Groote, J.F., Jansen, D.N., Keiren, J.J.A., Wijs, A.J.: An O(m log n) algorithm for computing stuttering equivalence and branching bisimulation. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 18(2) (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groote, J.F., Kouters, T.W.D.M., Osaiweran, A.: Specification guidelines to avoid the state space explosion problem. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab. 25(1), 4–33 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Groote, J.F., Mousavi, M.R.: Modeling and Analysis of Communicating Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jonk, R.: The semantics of ALIAS defined in mCRL2. Master’s thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional \(\mu \)-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 27(3), 333–354 (1982).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0012782MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osaiweran, A., Schuts, M., Hooman, J., Groote, J.F., van Rijnsoever, B.J.: Evaluating the effect of a lightweight formal technique in industry. STTT 18(1), 93–108 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-015-0374-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Remenska, D., et al.: From UML to process algebra and back: an automated approach to model-checking software design artifacts of concurrent systems. In: Brat, G., Rungta, N., Venet, A. (eds.) NFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7871, pp. 244–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38088-4_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Remenska, D., Willemse, T.A.C., Templon, J., Verstoep, K., Bal, H.: Property specification made easy: harnessing the power of model checking in UML designs. In: Ábrahám, E., Palamidessi, C. (eds.) FORTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8461, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43613-4_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roscoe, A.W.: On the expressive power of CSP refinement. Form. Asp. Comput. 17(2), 93–112 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-005-0065-xCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options