Advertisement

Technical Debt in Model Transformation Specifications

  • Kevin LanoEmail author
  • Shekoufeh Kolahdouz-Rahimi
  • Mohammadreza Sharbaf
  • Hessa Alfraihi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10888)

Abstract

Model transformations (MT), as with any other software artifact, may contain quality flaws. Even if a transformation is functionally correct, such flaws will impair maintenance activities such as enhancement and porting. The concept of technical debt (TD) models the impact of such flaws as a burden carried by the software which must either be settled in a ‘lump sum’ to eradicate the flaw, or paid in the ongoing additional costs of maintaining the software with the flaw. In this paper we investigate the characteristics of technical debt in model transformations, analysing a range of MT cases in different MT languages, and using measures of quality flaws or ‘bad smells’ for MT, adapted from code measures.

Based on these measures we identify significant differences in the level and kinds of technical debt in different MT languages, and we propose ways in which TD can be reduced.

References

  1. 1.
    van Amstel, M., Bosems, S., Kurtev, I., Ferreira Pires, L.: Performance in model transformations: experiments with ATL and QVT. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) ICMT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6707, pp. 198–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21732-6_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Amstel, M., van den Brand, M.: Using metrics for assessing the quality of ATL model transformations. In: MtATL 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arendt, T., Taentzer, G.: UML model smells and model refactorings in early software development phases. Technical report FB 12. Philipps Universitat, Marburg (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basili, V.: Software modeling and measurement: the goal/question/metric paradigm (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batot, E., Sahraoui, H., Syriani, E., Molins, P., Sboui, W.: Systematic mapping study of model transformations for concrete problems. In: Modelsward 2016, pp. 176–183 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Correa, A., Werner, C.: Refactoring OCL specifications. SoSyM 6, 113–138 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    He, X., Avgeriou, P., Liang, P., Li, Z.: Technical debt in MDE: a case study on GMF/EMF-based projects. In: MODELS 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IEC/ISO, 25010 Systems and software engineering - systems and software quality models (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kapová, L., Goldschmidt, T., Becker, S., Henss, J.: Evaluating maintainability with code metrics for model-to-model transformations. In: Heineman, G.T., Kofron, J., Plasil, F. (eds.) QoSA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6093, pp. 151–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13821-8_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lano, K., Kolahdouz-Rahimi, S., Yassipour-Tehrani, S.: Solving the CRA case using UML-RSDS. In: TTC 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lano, K., et al.: Translating from UML-RSDS OCL to ANSI C. In: OCL 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lucio, L., Amrani, M., Dingel, J., Lambers, L., Salay, R., Selim, G., Syriani, E., Wimmer, M.: Model transformation intents and their properties. SoSyM 15, 647–684 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macedo, N., Cunha, A.: Least-change bidirectional model transformation with QVT-R and ATL. SoSyM 15, 783–810 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marinescu, R.: Assessing technical debt by identifying design flaws in software systems. IBM J. Res. Dev. 56(5), 9:1–9:13 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Struber, D., Ploger, J., Acretoaie, V.: Clone detection for graph-based MT languages. In: ICMT 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wagelaar, D.: Composition techniques for rule-based MT languages. In: ICMT 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weatherill, G.B.: Elementary Statistical Methods. Chapman and Hall, London (1978)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wimmer, M., et al.: A Catalogue of Refactorings for model-to-model transformations. J. Object Technol. 11(2), 1–40 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Lano
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shekoufeh Kolahdouz-Rahimi
    • 2
  • Mohammadreza Sharbaf
    • 2
  • Hessa Alfraihi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Software EngineeringUniversity of IsfahanIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations