Advertisement

Change-Preserving Model Repair

  • Gabriele Taentzer
  • Manuel Ohrndorf
  • Yngve Lamo
  • Adrian Rutle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10202)

Abstract

During modeling activities, inconsistencies can easily occur due to misunderstandings, lack of information or simply mistakes. In this paper, we focus on model inconsistencies that occur due to model editing and cause violation of the meta-model conformance. Although temporarily accepting inconsistencies helps to keep progress, inconsistencies have to be resolved finally. One form of resolution is model repair. Assuming that model changes are state-based, (potentially) performed edit operations can be automatically identified from state differences and further analyzed. As a result, inconsistent changes may be identified causing a need to repair the model. There may exist an overwhelming number of possible repair actions that restore consistency. The edit history may help to identify the relevant repairs. Model inconsistencies are repaired by computing and applying complement edit operations that are needed to re-establish the overall model consistency. In this paper, we clarify under which conditions this kind of model repair can be applied. The soundness of this approach is shown by formalizing it based on the theory of graph transformation. A prototype tool based on the Eclipse Modeling Framework and Henshin is used to conduct an initial evaluation.

Keywords

Model-based engineering Model repair Graph transformation 

References

  1. 1.
    Easterbrook, S., Nuseibeh, B.: Using viewpoints for inconsistency management. Softw. Eng. J. 11(1), 31–43 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grundy, J.C., Hosking, J.G., Mugridge, W.B.: Inconsistency management for multiple-view software development environments. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(11), 960–981 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Egyed, A.: Instant consistency checking for the UML. In: 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 381–390. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blanc, X., Mounier, I., Mougenot, A., Mens, T.: Detecting model inconsistency through operation-based model construction. In: 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 511–520. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Enders, B., Heverhagen, T., Goedicke, M., Tröpfner, P., Tracht, R.: Towards an integration of different specification methods by using the viewpoint framework. Trans. SDPS 6(2), 1–23 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amelunxen, C., Legros, E., Schürr, A., Stürmer, I.: Checking and enforcement of modeling guidelines with graph transformations. In: Schürr, A., Nagl, M., Zündorf, A. (eds.) AGTIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 5088, pp. 313–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89020-1_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Königs, A., Schürr, A.: MDI: a rule-based multi-document and tool integration approach. Softw. Syst. Model. 5(4), 349–368 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reder, A., Egyed, A.: Computing repair trees for resolving inconsistencies in design models. In: International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 220–229. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Straeten, R.V.D., D’Hondt, M.: Model refactorings through rule-based inconsistency resolution. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), pp. 1210–1217. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balzer, R.: Tolerating inconsistency. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 158–165. IEEE Computer Society/ACM Press (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Macedo, N., Tiago, J., Cunha, A.: A feature-based classification of model repair approaches. CoRR, vol. abs/1504.03947 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Straeten, R.V.D., Mens, T., Simmonds, J., Jonckers, V.: Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-45221-8_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Straeten, R.V.D., Puissant, J.P., Mens, T.: Assessing the kodkod model finder for resolving model inconsistencies. In: France, R.B., Kuester, J.M., Bordbar, B., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6698, pp. 69–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21470-7_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sen, S., Baudry, B., Precup, D.: Partial model completion in model driven engineering using constraint logic programming. In: 17th International Conference on Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management (INAP 2007) and 21st Workshop on (Constraint) (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Macedo, N., Guimarães, T., Cunha, A.: Model repair and transformation with echo. In: 28th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2013, pp. 694–697. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Puissant, J.P., Straeten, R.V.D., Mens, T.: Resolving model inconsistencies using automated regression planning. Softw. Syst. Model. 14(1), 461–481 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kehrer, T., Kelter, U., Taentzer, G.: Consistency-preserving edit scripts in model versioning. In: 28th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 191–201. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kehrer, T., Taentzer, G., Rindt, M., Kelter, U.: Automatically deriving the specification of model editing operations from meta-models. In: Van Gorp, P., Engels, G. (eds.) ICMT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9765, pp. 173–188. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-42064-6_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arendt, T., Biermann, E., Jurack, S., Krause, C., Taentzer, G.: Henshin: advanced concepts and tools for in-place EMF model transformations. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 121–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16145-2_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Capozucca, A., Cheng, B., Guelfi, N., Istoan, P.: Oo-spl modelling of the focused case study. In: Comparing Modeling Approaches (CMA) International Workshop affiliated with ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (CMA@ MODELS2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rindt, M., Kehrer, T., Kelter, U.: Automatic generation of consistency-preserving edit operations for MDE tools. In: Demonstrations Track of the ACM/IEEE 17th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1255 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Golas, U., Habel, A., Ehrig, H.: Multi-amalgamation of rules with application conditions in M-adhesive categories. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 24(4), 68 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Plump, D.: Critical pairs in term graph rewriting. In: Prívara, I., Rovan, B., Ruzička, P. (eds.) MFCS 1994. LNCS, vol. 841, pp. 556–566. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). doi: 10.1007/3-540-58338-6_102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taentzer, G., Ohrndorf, M., Lamo, Y., Rutle, A.: Change-preserving model repair: extended version. Philipps-Universität Marburg, Technical report (2017). www.uni-marburg.de/fb12/swt/research/publications
  26. 26.
    Taentzer, G., Ohrndorf, M., Lamo, Y., Rutle, A.: Change-preserving model repair - tool support and initial evaluation. pi.informatik.uni-siegen.de/projects/ SiLift/fase2017/
  27. 27.
    Kehrer, T., Kelter, U., Pietsch, P., Schmidt, M.: Adaptability of model comparison tools. In: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), Essen, Germany, pp. 306–309. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kehrer, T., Kelter, U., Taentzer, G.: A rule-based approach to the semantic lifting of model differences in the context of model versioning. In: 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), Lawrence, KS, USA, pp. 163–172. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schürr, A.: Specification of graph translators with triple graph grammars. In: Mayr, E.W., Schmidt, G., Tinhofer, G. (eds.) WG 1994. LNCS, vol. 903, pp. 151–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). doi: 10.1007/3-540-59071-4_45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Ermel, C., Hermann, F., Taentzer, G.: Information preserving bidirectional model transformations. In: Dwyer, M.B., Lopes, A. (eds.) FASE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4422, pp. 72–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-71289-3_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mens, T., Straeten, R.V.D., D’Hondt, M.: Detecting and resolving model inconsistencies using transformation dependency analysis. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MODELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 200–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11880240_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriele Taentzer
    • 1
  • Manuel Ohrndorf
    • 2
  • Yngve Lamo
    • 3
  • Adrian Rutle
    • 3
  1. 1.Philipps-Universität MarburgMarburgGermany
  2. 2.Universität SiegenSiegenGermany
  3. 3.Western Norway University of Applied SciencesBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations