Coverage of OCL Operation Specifications and Invariants

  • Mathias Soeken
  • Julia Seiter
  • Rolf Drechsler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9154)


We consider operation coverage of OCL operation specifications and invariants in class diagrams with respect to sequence diagrams. The coverage criteria are based on the operations that are executed from the sequence diagrams and their asserted OCL subexpressions. We propose an algorithm that automatically generates a set of sequence diagrams in order to maximise these coverage criteria. A model finder is leveraged for this purpose. As a result, also operations and constraints can be determined that can never be executed and asserted, respectively. Our algorithm has been implemented in the UML specification tool USE.


Model Check Class Diagram Sequence Diagram Object Constraint Language Operation Sequence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Andrews, A., France, R.B., Ghosh, S., Craig, G.: Test adequacy criteria for UML design models. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 13, 95–127 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial Intelligence 168(1–2), 70–118 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: Verification of UML/OCL class diagrams using constraint programming. In: Int’l. Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshop, pp. 73–80. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, Jr., E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frias, M.F., Galeotti, J.P., Pombo, C.L., Aguirre, N.: DynAlloy: upgrading alloy with actions. In: Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 442–451. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: a UML-based specification environment for validating UML and OCL. Science of Computer Programming 69, 27–34 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. MIT Press (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krieger, M.P., Knapp, A.: Executing underspecified OCL operation contracts with a SAT solver. Electronic Communication of the European Association of Software Science and Technology 15 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuhlmann, M., Hamann, L., Gogolla, M.: Extensive validation of OCL models by integrating SAT solving into USE. In: Bishop, J., Vallecillo, A. (eds.) TOOLS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6705, pp. 290–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Niemann, P., Hilken, F., Gogolla, M., Wille, R.: Assisted generation of frame conditions for formal models. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richters, M.: A Precise Approach to Validating UML Models and OCL Constraints. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bremen, Logos Verlag, Berlin, BISS Monographs, No. 1 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rountev, A., Kagan, S., Sawin, J.: Coverage criteria for testing of object interactions in sequence diagrams. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 289–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Soeken, M., Wille, R., Drechsler, R.: Verifying dynamic aspects of UML models. In: Design, Automation and Test in Europe. pp. 1077–1082. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soeken, M., Wille, R., Kuhlmann, M., Gogolla, M., Drechsler, R.: Verifying UML/OCL models using Boolean satisfiability. In: Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 1341–1344. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling with UML. Addison-Wesley Longman (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu, L., France, R.B., Ray, I.: Scenario-Based static analysis of UML class models. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 234–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu, L., France, R.B., Ray, I., Sun, W.: Systematic scenario-based analysis of UML design class models. In: Int’l Conf. on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, pp. 86–95. IEEE Computer Society (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathias Soeken
    • 1
    • 2
  • Julia Seiter
    • 1
  • Rolf Drechsler
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.Cyber-Physical SystemsDFKI GmbHBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations