Advertisement

A Formal Approach to Error Localization and Correction in Service Compositions

  • Julia Krämer
  • Heike WehrheimEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9946)

Abstract

Error detection, localization and correction are time-intensive tasks in software development, but crucial to deliver functionally correct products. Thus, automated approaches to these tasks have been intensively studied for standard software systems. For model-based software systems, the situation is different. While error detection is still well-studied, error localization and correction is a less-studied domain. In this paper, we examine error localization and correction for models of service compositions. Based on formal definitions of error and correction in this context, we show that the classical approach of error localization and correction, i.e. first determining a set of suspicious statements and then proposing changes to these statements, is ineffective in our context. In fact, it lessens the chance to succeed in finding a correction at all.

In this paper, we introduce correction proposal as a novel approach on error correction in service compositions integrating error localization and correction in one combined step. In addition, we provide an algorithm to compute such correction proposals automatically.

Keywords

Error Localization Service Composition Global Error Single Service Service Market 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Apt, K.R., Olderog, E.-R.: Verification of Sequential and Concurrent Programs: Graduate Texts in Computer Science, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, S., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: The palladio component model for model-driven performance prediction. J. Syst. Softw. 82, 3–22 (2009). Special Issue: Software Performance - Modeling and AnalysisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, M.Y., Kiciman, E., Fratkin, E., Fox, A., Brewer, E., Pinpoint: problem determination in large, dynamic internet services. In: International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christ, J., Ermis, E., Schäf, M., Wies, T.: Flow-sensitive fault localization. In: Giacobazzi, R., Berdine, J., Mastroeni, I. (eds.) VMCAI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7737, pp. 189–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35873-9_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cleve, H., Zeller, A.: Locating causes of program failures. In: Proceedings of 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2005. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cytron, R., Ferrante, J., Rosen, B.K., Wegman, M.N., Zadeck, F.K.: Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 13(4), 451–490 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dallmeier, V., Lindig, C., Zeller, A.: Lightweight defect localization for java. In: Black, A.P. (ed.) ECOOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3586, pp. 528–550. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11531142_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dijkstra, E.W., Scholten, C.S.: Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics: Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, New York (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ermis, E., Schäf, M., Wies, T.: Error invariants. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 187–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32759-9_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fahrenberg, U., Larsen, K.G., Legay, A.: Model-based verification, optimization, synthesis and performance evaluation of real-time systems. In: Liu, Z., Woodcock, J., Zhu, H. (eds.) Unifying Theories of Programming and Formal Engineering Methods. LNCS, vol. 8050, pp. 67–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39721-9_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Güdemann, M., Poizat, P., Salaün, G., Dumont, A.: VerChor: a framework for verifying choreographies. In: Cortellessa, V., Varró, D. (eds.) FASE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7793, pp. 226–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-37057-1_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupta, A., Rybalchenko, A.: InvGen: an efficient invariant generator. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 634–640. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones, J.A., Harrold, M.J.: Empirical evaluation of the tarantula automatic fault-localization technique. In: Proceedings of 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2005. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jose, M., Majumdar, R.: Cause clue clauses: error localization using maximum satisfiability. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 46(6), 437–446 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jose, M., Majumdar, R.: Cause clue clauses: error localization using maximum satisfiability. In: Proceedings of 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2011. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    önighofer, R.K., Bloem, R.: Automated error localization and correction for imperative programs, FMCAD 2011. FMCAD Inc. (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korel, B., Laski, J.: Dynamic program slicing. Inf. Process. Lett. 29(3), 155–163 (1988)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krämer, J., Wehrheim, H.: A short survey on using software error localization for service compositions. In: Aiello, M., Johnsen, E.B., Georgievski, I., Dustdar, S. (eds.) Service Oriented and Cloud Computing, ESOCC 2016 (2016). (to appear)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lamraoui, S.-M., Nakajima, S.: A formula-based approach for automatic fault localization of imperative programs. In: Merz, S., Pang, J. (eds.) ICFEM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8829, pp. 251–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-11737-9_17 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Monperrus, M., Automatic software repair: a bibliography. Technical report hal-01206501, University of Lille (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    OASIS. Web Services Business Process Execution Language v2.0. http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.pdf
  22. 22.
    Schäfer, W.: Model driven development with mechatronic UML. In: Stapleton, G., Howse, J., Lee, J. (eds.) Diagrams 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5223, p. 4. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-87730-1_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walther, S., Wehrheim, H.: Knowledge-based verification of service compositions - an SMT approach. In: Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS) (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weiser, M.: Program slicing. In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 1981. IEEE Press, Piscataway (1981)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zeller, A.: Yesterday, my program worked. today, it does not. why? In: Nierstrasz, O., Lemoine, M. (eds.) ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE -1999. LNCS, vol. 1687, pp. 253–267. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi: 10.1007/3-540-48166-4_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zeller, A.: Isolating cause-effect chains from computer programs. In: Proceedings of 10th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, SIGSOFT 2002/FSE-10. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zeller, A., Hildebrandt, R.: Simplifying and isolating failure-inducing input. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(2), 183–200 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang, X., He, H., Gupta, N., Gupta, R.: Experimental evaluation of using dynamic slices for fault location. In: Proceedings of Sixth International Symposium on Automated Analysis-driven Debugging, AADEBUG 2005. ACM (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Paderborn University – Computer SciencePaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations