Evolution of domain-specific languages depending on external libraries

L'ingénierie dirigée par les modèles est une approche qui s'appuie sur l'abstraction pour exprimer davantage les concepts du domaine. Ainsi, les ingénieurs logiciels développent des langages dédiés (LD) qui encapsulent la structure, les contraintes et le comportement du domaine. Comme tout logiciel, les LDs évoluent régulièrement. Cette évolution peut se produire lorsque l'un de ses composants ou le domaine évolue. L'évolution du domaine ainsi que l'évolution des composants du LD et l'impact de cette évolution sur ceux-ci ont été largement étudiés. Cependant, un LD peut également dépendre sur d'éléments externes qui ne sont pas modélisées. Par conséquent, l'évolution de ces dépendances externes affecte le LD et ses composants. Actuellement, les ingénieurs logiciels doivent évoluer le LD manuellement lorsque les dépendances externes évoluent. Dans ce mémoire, nous nous concentrons sur l'évolution des librairies externes. Plus spécifiquement, le but de cette thèse est d'aider les ingénieurs logiciels dans la tâche d'évolution. À cette fin, nous proposons une approche qui intègre automatiquement les changements des librairies externes dans le LD. De plus, nous offrons un LD qui supporte l'évolution des librairies Arduino. Nous évaluons également notre approche en faisant évoluer un éditeur de modélisation interactif qui dépend d'un LD. Cette étude nous permet de montrer la faisabilité et l'utilité de notre approche.Model-driven engineering (MDE) is an approach that relies on abstraction to further express domain concepts. Hence, language engineers develop domain-specific languages (DSLs) that encapsulates the domain structure, constraints, and behavior. Like any software, DSLs evolve regularly. This evolution can occur when one of its components or the domain evolves. The domain evolution as well as the evolution of DSL components and the impact of such evolution on them has been widely investigated. However, a DSL may also rely on external dependencies that are not modeled. As a result, the evolution of these external dependencies affects the DSL and its components. This evolution problem has yet to be addressed. Currently, language engineers must manually evolve the DSL when the external dependencies evolve. In this thesis, we focus on the evolution of external libraries. More specifically, our goal is to assist language engineers in the task of evolution. To this end, we propose an approach that automatically integrates the changes of the external libraries into the DSL. In addition, we offer a DSL that supports the evolution of the Arduino libraries. We also evaluate our approach by evolving an interactive modeling editor that depends on a DSL. This study allows us to demonstrate the feasibility and usefulness of our approach

A generic in-place transformation-based approach to structured model co-evolution

In MDE not only models but also metamodels are subject to evolution. More specifically, they need to be adapted to correct errors, support new and/or update language features. The direct consequence of such evolutionary steps comprises the problem of managing the co-evolution of existing model instances, which may no longer conform to the new metamodel version. This model migration is intrinsically complex and results in a time-consuming and error-prone process if no adequate support is provided. For tackling this problem, we introduce a new technique to guide the user in solving migration issues in a step-wise manner. The aims are manifold, notably the simplification of the migration specification, the reduction of the effort for the evolver, the control of user intervention, and the optimization of the migration execution itself by allowing in-place adaptation of the existing instances

Generic Quality-Aware Refactoring and Co-Refactoring in Heterogeneous Model Environments

Software has been subject to change, at all times, in order to make parts of it, for instance, more reusable, better to understand by humans, or to increase efficiency under a certain point of view. Restructurings of existing software can be complex. To prevent developers from doing this manually, they got tools at hand being able to apply such restructurings automatically. These automatic changes of existing software to improve quality while preserving its behaviour is called refactoring. Refactoring is well investigated for programming languages and mature tools exist for executing refactorings in integrated development environments (IDEs). In recent years, the development paradigm of Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD) became more and more popular and we experience a shift in the sense that development artefacts are considered as models which conform metamodels. This can be understood as abstraction, which resulted in the trend that a plethora of new so-called model-based Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) arose. DSLs have become an integral part in the MDSD and it is obvious that models are subject to change, as well. Thus, refactoring support is required for DSLs in order to prevent users from doing it manually. The problem is that the amount of DSLs is huge and refactorings should not be implemented for new for each of them, since they are quite similar from an abstract viewing. Existing approaches abstract from the target language, which is not flexible enough because some assumptions about the languages have to be made and arbitrary DSLs are not supported. Furthermore, the relation between a strategy which finds model deficiencies that should be improved, a resolving refactoring, and the improved quality is only implicit. Focussing on a particular quality and only detecting those deficiencies deteriorating this quality is difficult, and elements of detected deficient structures cannot be referred to in the resolving refactoring. In addition, heterogeneous models in an IDE might be connected physically or logically, thus, they are dependent. Finding such connections is difficult and can hardly be achieved manually. Applying a restructuring in a model implied by a refactoring in a dependent model must also be a refactoring, in order to preserve the meaning. Thus, this kind of dependent refactorings require an appropriate abstraction mechanism, since they must be specified for dependent models of different DSLs. The first contribution, Role-Based Generic Model Refactoring, uses role models to abstract from refactorings instead of the target languages. Thus, participating structures in a refactoring can be specified generically by means of role models. As a consequence, arbitrary model-based DSLs are supported, since this approach does not make any assumptions regarding the target languages. Our second contribution, Role-Based Quality Smells, is a conceptual framework and correlates deficiencies, their deteriorated qualities, and resolving refactorings. Roles are used to abstract from the causing structures of a deficiency, which then are subject to resolving refactorings. The third contribution, Role-Based Co-Refactoring, employs the graph-logic isomorphism to detect dependencies between models. Dependent refactorings, which we call co-refactorings, are specified on the basis of roles for being independent from particular target DSLs. All introduced concepts are implemented in our tool Refactory. An evaluation in different scenarios complements the thesis. It shows that role models emerged as very powerful regarding the reuse of generic refactorings in arbitrary languages. Role models are suited as an interface for certain structures which are to be refactored, scanned for deficiencies, or co-refactored. All of the presented approaches benefit from it.:List of Figures xv List of Tables xvii List of Listings xix 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Language-Tool Generation Without Consideration Of Time And Space . . . . . 4 1.2. Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.3. Generic Quality-Aware Refactoring and Co-Refactoring in Heterogeneous Model Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. Foundations 15 2.1. Refactoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.2. Model-Driven Software Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.2.1. Levels of Abstraction and Metamodelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.2. Model Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.3. Role-Based Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3. Related Work 23 3.1. Model Refactoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.1.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.1.2. Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.1.3. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.2. Determination of Quality-Related De ciencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.2.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.2.2. Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.2.3. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.3. Co-Refactoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.3.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.3.2. Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.3.3. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4. Role-Based Generic Model Refactoring 51 4.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.2. Specifying Generic Refactorings with Role Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.2.1. Specifying Structural Constraints using Role Models . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.2.2. Mapping Roles to Language Concepts Using Role Mappings . . . . . . . 57 4.2.3. Specifying Language-Independent Transformations using Refactoring Speci cations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4.2.4. Composition of Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 4.3. Preserving Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5. Suggesting Role Mappings as Concrete Refactorings 73 5.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 5.2. Automatic Derivation of Suggestions for Role Mappings with Graph Querying . 74 5.3. Reduction of the Number of Valid Matches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 5.4. Comparison to Model Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 5.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 6. Role-Based Quality Smells as Refactoring Indicator 79 6.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6.2. Correlating Model De ciencies, Qualities and Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 6.2.1. Quality Smell Repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 6.2.2. Quality Smell Calculation Repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 6.3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 6.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 7. A Quality Smell Catalogue for Android Applications 89 7.1. Quality Smell Catalogue Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 7.2. Acquiring Quality Smells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 7.3. Structure-Based Quality Smells—A Detailed Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 7.3.1. The Pattern Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 7.3.2. Quality Smell: Interruption from Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 7.4. Quality Smells for Android Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 7.4.1. Quality Smell: Data Transmission Without Compression . . . . . . . . . 96 7.4.2. Quality Smell: Dropped Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.3. Quality Smell: Durable WakeLock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.4. Quality Smell: Internal Use of Getters/Setters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 7.4.5. Quality Smell: No Low Memory Resolver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 7.4.6. Quality Smell: Rigid AlarmManager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 7.4.7. Quality Smell: Unclosed Closeable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 7.4.8. Quality Smell: Untouchable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 7.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 8. Role-Based Co-Refactoring in Multi-Language Development Environments 105 8.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 8.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 8.3. Dependency Knowledge Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 8.3.1. Categories of Model Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 8.3.2. When to Determine Model Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 8.3.3. How to Determine Model Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 8.4. Co-Refactoring Knowledge Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8.4.1. Specifying Coupled Refactorings with Co-Refactoring Speci cations . . 114 8.4.2. Specifying Bindings for Co-Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 8.4.3. Determination of Co-Refactoring Speci cations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 8.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 8.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 9. Refactory: An Eclipse Tool For Quality-Aware Refactoring and Co-Refactoring 121 9.1. Refactoring Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 9.1.1. Role Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 9.1.2. Refactoring Speci cation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 9.1.3. Role Model Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 9.1.4. Refactoring Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 9.1.5. Custom Refactoring Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 9.1.6. Pre- and Post-conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 9.1.7. Integration Into the Eclipse Refactoring Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 9.2. Quality Smell Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 9.3. Co-Refactoring Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 9.3.1. Concrete Syntax of a CoRefSpec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 9.3.2. Expression Evaluation by Using an Expression Language . . . . . . . . . 138 9.3.3. UI and Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 9.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 10. Evaluation 143 10.1. Case Study: Reuse of Generic Refactorings in many DSLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 10.1.1. Threats to validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 10.1.2. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 10.1.3. Experience Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 10.2. Case Study: Suggestion of Valid Role Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 10.2.1. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 10.2.2. Evaluation and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 10.3. Proof of Concept: Co-Refactoring OWL and Ecore Models . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 10.3.1. Coupled OWL-Ecore Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 10.3.2. Realisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 10.3.3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 11. Summary, Conclusion and Outlook 161 11.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 11.2. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 11.3. Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Appendix 169 A. List of Role Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 B. Comparison to Role Feature Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 C. Complete List of Role Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 D. List of all IncPL Patterns for Detecting Quality Smells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 E. Post-Processor of the Extract CompositeState refactoring for UML State Machines 183 F. Speci cation of the Conference Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 List of Abbreviations 187 Bibliography 19

Multi-Schema-Version Data Management

Modern agile software development methods allow to continuously evolve software systems by easily adding new features, fixing bugs, and adapting the software to changing requirements and conditions while it is continuously used by the users. A major obstacle in the agile evolution is the underlying database that persists the software system’s data from day one on. Hence, evolving the database schema requires to evolve the existing data accordingly—at this point, the currently established solutions are very expensive and error-prone and far from agile. In this thesis, we present InVerDa, a multi-schema-version database system to facilitate agile database development. Multi-schema-version database systems provide multiple schema versions within the same database, where each schema version itself behaves like a regular single-schema database. Creating new schema versions is very simple to provide the desired agility for database development. All created schema versions can co-exist and write operations are immediately propagated between schema versions with a best-effort strategy. Developers do not have to implement the propagation logic of data accesses between schema versions by hand, but InVerDa automatically generates it. To facilitate multi-schema-version database systems, we equip developers with a relational complete and bidirectional database evolution language (BiDEL) that allows to easily evolve existing schema versions to new ones. BiDEL allows to express the evolution of both the schema and the data both forwards and backwards in intuitive and consistent operations; the BiDEL evolution scripts are orders of magnitude shorter than implementing the same behavior with standard SQL and are even less likely to be erroneous, since they describe a developer’s intention of the evolution exclusively on the level of tables without further technical details. Having the developers’ intentions explicitly given in the BiDEL scripts further allows to create a new schema version by merging already existing ones. Having multiple co-existing schema versions in one database raises the need for a sophisticated physical materialization. Multi-schema-version database systems provide full data independence, hence the database administrator can choose a feasible materialization, whereby the multi-schema-version database system internally ensures that no data is lost. The search space of possible materializations can grow exponentially with the number of schema versions. Therefore, we present an adviser that releases the database administrator from diving into the complex performance characteristics of multi-schema-version database systems and merely proposes an optimized materialization for a given workload within seconds. Optimized materializations have shown to improve the performance for a given workload by orders of magnitude. We formally guarantee data independence for multi-schema-version database systems. To this end, we show that every single schema version behaves like a regular single-schema database independent of the chosen physical materialization. This important guarantee allows to easily evolve and access the database in agile software development—all the important features of relational databases, such as transaction guarantees, are preserved. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to realize such a multi-schema-version database system that allows agile evolution of production databases with full support of co-existing schema versions and formally guaranteed data independence