Run-Time Assertion Checking of Data- and Protocol-Oriented Properties of Java Programs: An Industrial Case Study

  • Frank S. de Boer
  • Stijn de Gouw
  • Einar Broch Johnsen
  • Andreas Kohn
  • Peter Y. H. Wong
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8400)


Run-time assertion checking is one of the useful techniques for detecting faults, and can be applied during any program execution context, including debugging, testing, and production. In general, however, it is limited to checking state-based properties. We introduce SAGA, a general framework that provides a smooth integration of the specification and the run-time checking of both data- and protocol-oriented properties of Java classes and interfaces. We evaluate SAGA, which combines several state-of-the art tools, by conducting an industrial case study from an eCommerce software company Fredhopper.


Parse Tree Java Modeling Language Industrial Case Study Attribute Grammar Communication View 
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.
    Allan, C., Avgustinov, P., Christensen, A.S., Hendren, L.J., Kuzins, S., Lhoták, O., de Moor, O., Sereni, D., Sittampalam, G., Tibble, J.: Adding trace matching with free variables to aspectj. In: OOPSLA, pp. 345–364 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. J. Log. Comput. 20(3), 651–674 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burdy, L., Cheon, Y., Cok, D.R., Ernst, M.D., Kiniry, J.R., Leavens, G.T., Leino, K.R.M., Poll, E.: An overview of JML tools and applications. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 7(3), 212–232 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chalin, P., James, P.R., Karabotsos, G.: JML4: Towards an industrial grade IVE for java and next generation research platform for JML. In: Shankar, N., Woodcock, J. (eds.) VSTTE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5295, pp. 70–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, F., Rosu, G.: MOP: an efficient and generic runtime verification framework. In: OOPSLA, pp. 569–588 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheon, Y., Perumandla, A.: Specifying and checking method call sequences of java programs. Software Quality Journal 15(1), 7–25 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, L.A., Rosenblum, D.S.: A historical perspective on runtime assertion checking in software development. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 31(3), 25–37 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colombo, C., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: Larva — safer monitoring of real-time Java programs (tool paper). In: SEFM, pp. 33–37 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Boer, F.S., de Gouw, S.: Run-time verification of black-box components using behavioral specifications: An experience report on tool development. In: Păsăreanu, C.S., Salaün, G. (eds.) FACS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7684, pp. 128–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M.: Typestates for objects. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 465–490. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hedin, G.: Incremental attribute evaluation with side-effects. In: Hammer, D. (ed.) CCHSC 1988. LNCS, vol. 371, pp. 175–189. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hurlin, C.: Specifying and checking protocols of multithreaded classes. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2009), pp. 587–592. ACM Press (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klint, P., van der Storm, T., Vinju, J.: Rascal: a domain specific language for source code analysis and manipulation. In: Walenstein, A., Schupp, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM 2009), pp. 168–177 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knuth, D.E.: Semantics of context-free languages. Mathematical Systems Theory 2(2), 127–145 (1968)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin, M., Livshits, B., Lam, M.S.: Finding application errors and security flaws using PQL: a program query language. In: OOPLSLA (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nobakht, B., Bonsangue, M.M., de Boer, F.S., de Gouw, S.: Monitoring method call sequences using annotations. In: Barbosa, L.S., Lumpe, M. (eds.) FACS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6921, pp. 53–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parr, T.: The Definitive ANTLR Reference. Pragmatic Bookshelf (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parr, T.J., Quong, R.W.: Adding semantic and syntactic predicates to LL(k): pred-LL(k). In: Fritzson, P.A. (ed.) CC 1994. LNCS, vol. 786, pp. 263–277. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pnueli, A., Zaks, A.: PSL model checking and run-time verification via testers. In: FM, pp. 573–586 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sipser, M.: Introduction to the theory of computation. PWS Publishing Company (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trentelman, K., Huisman, M.: Extending JML specifications with temporal logic. In: Kirchner, H., Ringeissen, C. (eds.) AMAST 2002. LNCS, vol. 2422, pp. 334–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank S. de Boer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stijn de Gouw
    • 1
    • 2
  • Einar Broch Johnsen
    • 3
  • Andreas Kohn
    • 4
  • Peter Y. H. Wong
    • 4
  1. 1.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Leiden UniversityThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of OsloNorway
  4. 4.Fredhopper B.V.AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations