Advertisement

Modeling Rover Communication Using Hierarchical State Machines with Scala

  • Klaus Havelund
  • Rajeev JoshiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10489)

Abstract

We demonstrate the application of a new domain-specific language (DSL) for modeling Hierarchical State Machines (HSMs) to the software that manages communications for the Curiosity Mars rover.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research performed was carried out at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Unified Modeling Language. http://www.uml.org. Accessed 06 Aug 2017
  3. 3.
    Barringer, H., Falcone, Y., Havelund, K., Reger, G., Rydeheard, D.: Quantified event automata: towards expressive and efficient runtime monitors. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 68–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32759-9_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barringer, H., Havelund, K.: TraceContract: a scala DSL for trace analysis. In: Butler, M., Schulte, W. (eds.) FM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6664, pp. 57–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21437-0_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basin, D., Klaedtke, F., Marinovic, S., Zălinescu, E.: Monitoring of temporal first-order properties with aggregations. In: Legay, A., Bensalem, S. (eds.) RV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8174, pp. 40–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40787-1_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broy, M., Havelund, K., Kumar, R.: Towards a unified view of modeling and programming. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 238–257. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deligiannis, P., Donaldson, A.F., Ketema, J., Lal, A., Thomson, P.: Asynchronous programming, analysis and testing with state machines. In: Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2015, NY, USA, pp. 154–164 (2015). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2737924.2737996
  8. 8.
    Desai, A., Gupta, V., Jackson, E., Qadeer, S., Rajamani, S., Zufferey, D.: P: Safe asynchronous event-driven programming. In: Proceedings of PLDI 2013, pp. 321–332 (2013). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2491956.2462184
  9. 9.
    Drusinsky, D.: Modeling and Verification using UML Statecharts. Elsevier, ISBN-13: 978-0-7506-7949-7, 400 p (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassard, J.: Closing. In: Dias, M., Eick, C.J., Brantley-Dias, L. (eds.) Science Teacher Educators as K-12 Teachers. ASSE, vol. 1, pp. 287–302. Springer, Dordrecht (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-6763-8_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Havelund, K.: Data automata in Scala. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering, TASE 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Havelund, K.: Rule-based runtime verification revisited. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 17(2), 143–170 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Havelund, K., Joshi, R.: Modeling and monitoring of hierarchical state machines in Scala. In preparationGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Havelund, K., Visser, W.: Program model checking as a new trend. STTT 4(1), 8–20 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kauffman, S., Havelund, K., Joshi, R.: nfer – a notation and system for inferring event stream abstractions. In: Falcone, Y., Sánchez, C. (eds.) RV 2016. LNCS, vol. 10012, pp. 235–250. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46982-9_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meredith, P., Jin, D., Griffith, D., Chen, F., Roşu, G.: An overview of the MOP runtime verification framework. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. pp. 1–41 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10009-011-0198-6
  18. 18.
    Müller, P., Schwerhoff, M., Summers, A.J.: Viper: a verification infrastructure for permission-based reasoning. In: Jobstmann, B., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) VMCAI 2016. LNCS, vol. 9583, pp. 41–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-49122-5_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Samek, M.: Practical UML Statecharts in C/C++, Event-Driven Programming for Embedded Systems, 2nd edn. Newnes, MA, USA (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations