CASE Tool support for variability management in software product lines

Software product lines (SPL) aim at reducing time-to-market and increasing software quality through extensive, planned reuse of artifacts. An essential activity in SPL is variability management, i.e., defining and managing commonality and variability among member products. Due to the large scale and complexity of today’s software-intensive systems, variability management has become increasingly complex to conduct. Accordingly, tool support for variability management has been gathering increasing momentum over the last few years and can be considered a key success factor for developing and maintaining SPLs. While several studies have already been conducted on variability management, none of these analyzed the available tool support in detail. In this work, we report on a survey in which we analyzed 37 existing variability management tools identified using a systematic literature review to understand the tools’ characteristics, maturity, and the challenges in the field. We conclude that while most studies on variability management tools provide a good motivation and description of the research context and challenges, they often lack empirical data to support their claims and findings. It was also found that quality attributes important for the practical use of tools such as usability, integration, scalability, and performance were out of scope for most studies

UML Transformation to Java-based Software Product Lines

Software product line engineering (SPLE) is an emerging approach that enables variability management in software development. SPLE offers tremendous benefits, but lack of tool support becomes a barrier in the adoption of SPLE. Variability modules for Java (VMJ) is an implementation approach that is defined based on the variability modules (VM) concept to support SPLE. VMJ combines Java modules system and design patterns that are commonly used by software developers. VMJ is accompanied by a UML profile, called UML-VM profile, which extends UML notation to model variability in the UML diagram. UML-VM diagram is used to model the problem domain, and VMJ is used in the domain implementation. In this research, we design a model transformation from Unified Modeling Language (UML) diagram into VMJ. The transformation rules are defined based on the UML-VM profile and implemented in the Eclipse Acceleo model to text transformation. As a result, a UML diagram can be transformed automatically into Java-based software product lines. The transformation tool is evaluated using a case study by comparing the generated code and the actual implementation

Supporting the automated generation of modular product line safety cases

Abstract The effective reuse of design assets in safety-critical Software Product Lines (SPL) would require the reuse of safety analyses of those assets in the variant contexts of certification of products derived from the SPL. This in turn requires the traceability of SPL variation across design, including variation in safety analysis and safety cases. In this paper, we propose a method and tool to support the automatic generation of modular SPL safety case architectures from the information provided by SPL feature modeling and model-based safety analysis. The Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) safety case modeling notation and its modular extensions supported by the D-Case Editor were used to implement the method in an automated tool support. The tool was used to generate a modular safety case for an automotive Hybrid Braking System SPL

Integrated Management of Variability in Space and Time in Software Families

Software Product Lines (SPLs) and Software Ecosystems (SECOs) are approaches to capturing families of closely related software systems in terms of common and variable functionality (variability in space). SPLs and especially SECOs are subject to software evolution to adapt to new or changed requirements resulting in different versions of the software family and its variable assets (variability in time). Both dimensions may be interconnected (e.g., through version incompatibilities) and, thus, have to be handled simultaneously as not all customers upgrade their respective products immediately or completely. However, there currently is no integrated approach allowing variant derivation of features in different version combinations. In this thesis, remedy is provided in the form of an integrated approach making contributions in three areas: (1) As variability model, Hyper-Feature Models (HFMs) and a version-aware constraint language are introduced to conceptually capture variability in time as features and feature versions. (2) As variability realization mechanism, delta modeling is extended for variability in time, and a language creation infrastructure is provided to devise suitable delta languages. (3) For the variant derivation procedure, an automatic version selection mechanism is presented as well as a procedure to derive large parts of the application order for delta modules from the structure of the HFM. The presented integrated approach enables derivation of concrete software systems from an SPL or a SECO where both features and feature versions may be configured.:I. Context and Preliminaries 1. The Configurable TurtleBot Driver as Running Example 1.1. TurtleBot: A Domestic Service Robot 1.2. Configurable Driver Functionality 1.3. Software Realization Artifacts 1.4. Development History of the Driver Software 2. Families of Variable Software Systems 2.1. Variability 2.1.1. Variability in Space and Time 2.1.2. Internal and External Variability 2.2. Manifestations of Configuration Knowledge 2.2.1. Variability Models 2.2.2. Variability Realization Mechanisms 2.2.3. Variability in Realization Assets 2.3. Types of Software Families 2.3.1. Software Product Lines 2.3.2. Software Ecosystems 2.3.3. Comparison of Software Product Lines and Software Ecosystems 3. Fundamental Approaches and Technologies of the Thesis 3.1. Model-Driven Software Development 3.1.1. Metamodeling Levels 3.1.2. Utilizing Models in Generative Approaches 3.1.3. Representation of Languages using Metamodels 3.1.4. Changing the Model-Representation of Artifacts 3.1.5. Suitability of Model-Driven Software Development 3.2. Fundamental Variability Management Techniques of the Thesis 3.2.1. Feature Models as Variability Models 3.2.2. Delta Modeling as Variability Realization Mechanism 3.2.3. Variant Derivation Process of Delta Modeling with Feature Models 3.3. Constraint Satisfaction Problems 3.4. Scope 3.4.1. Problem Statement 3.4.2. Requirements 3.4.3. Assumptions and Boundaries II. Integrated Management of Variability in Space and Time 4. Capturing Variability in Space and Time with Hyper-Feature Models 4.1. Feature Models Cannot Capture Variability in Time 4.2. Formal Definition of Feature Models 4.3. Definition of Hyper-Feature Models 4.4. Creation of Hyper-Feature Model Versions 4.5. Version-Aware Constraints to Represent Version Dependencies and Incompatibilities 4.6. Hyper-Feature Models are a True Extension to Feature Models 4.7. Case Study 4.8. Demarcation from Related Work 4.9. Chapter Summary 5. Creating Delta Languages Suitable for Variability in Space and Time 5.1. Current Delta Languages are not Suitable for Variability in Time 5.2. Software Fault Trees as Example of a Source Language 5.3. Evolution Delta Modules as Manifestation of Variability in Time 5.4. Automating Delta Language Generation 5.4.1. Standard Delta Operations Realize Usual Functionality 5.4.2. Custom Delta Operations Realize Specialized Functionality 5.5. Delta Language Creation Infrastructure 5.5.1. The Common Base Delta Language Provides Shared Functionality for all Delta Languages 5.5.2. Delta Dialects Define Delta Operations for Custom Delta Languages 5.5.3. Custom Delta Languages Enable Variability in Source Languages 5.6. Case Study 5.7. Demarcation from Related Work 5.8. Chapter Summary 6. Deriving Variants with Variability in Space and Time 6.1. Variant Derivation Cannot Handle Variability in Time 6.2. Associating Features and Feature Versions with Delta Modules 6.3. Automatically Select Versions to Ease Configuration 6.4. Application Order and Implicitly Required Delta Modules 6.4.1. Determining Relevant Delta Modules 6.4.2. Forming a Dependency Graph of Delta Modules 6.4.3. Performing a Topological Sorting of Delta Modules 6.5. Generating Variants with Versions of Variable Assets 6.6. Case Study 6.7. Demarcation from Related Work 6.8. Chapter Summary III. Realization and Application 7. Realization as Tool Suite DeltaEcore 7.1. Creating Delta Languages 7.1.1. Shared Base Metamodel 7.1.2. Common Base Delta Language 7.1.3. Delta Dialects 7.2. Specifying a Software Family with Variability in Space and Time 7.2.1. Hyper-Feature Models 7.2.2. Version-Aware Constraints 7.2.3. Delta Modules 7.2.4. Application-Order Constraints 7.2.5. Mapping Models 7.3. Deriving Variants 7.3.1. Creating a Configuration 7.3.2. Collecting Delta Modules 7.3.3. Ordering Delta Modules 7.3.4. Applying Delta Modules 8. Evaluation 8.1. Configurable TurtleBot Driver Software 8.1.1. Variability in Space 8.1.2. Variability in Time 8.1.3. Integrated Management of Variability in Space and Time 8.2. Metamodel Family for Role-Based Modeling and Programming Languages 8.2.1. Variability in Space 8.2.2. Variability in Time 8.2.3. Integrated Management of Variability in Space and Time 8.3. A Software Product Line of Feature Modeling Notations and Constraint Languages 8.3.1. Variability in Space 8.3.2. Variability in Time 8.3.3. Integrated Management of Variability in Space and Time 8.4. Results and Discussion 8.4.1. Results and Discussion of RQ1: Variability Model 8.4.2. Results and Discussion of RQ2: Variability Realization Mechanism 8.4.3. Results and Discussion of RQ3: Variant Derivation Procedure 9. Conclusion 9.1. Discussion 9.1.1. Supported Evolutionary Changes 9.1.2. Conceptual Representation of Variability in Time 9.1.3. Perception of Versions as Incremental 9.1.4. Version Numbering Schemes 9.1.5. Created Delta Languages 9.1.6. Scalability of Approach 9.2. Possible Future Application Areas 9.2.1. Extend to Full Software Ecosystem Feature Model 9.2.2. Model Software Ecosystems 9.2.3. Extract Hyper-Feature Model Versions and Record Delta Modules 9.2.4. Introduce Metaevolution Delta Modules 9.2.5. Support Incremental Reconfiguration 9.2.6. Apply for Evolution Analysis and Planning 9.2.7. Enable Evolution of Variable Safety-Critical Systems 9.3. Contribution 9.3.1. Individual Contributions 9.3.2. Handling Updater Stereotypes IV. Appendix A. Delta Operation Generation Algorithm B. Delta Dialects B.1. Delta Dialect for Java B.2. Delta Dialect for Eclipse Projects B.3. Delta Dialect for DocBook Markup B.4. Delta Dialect for Software Fault Trees B.5. Delta Dialect for Component Fault Diagrams B.6. Delta Dialect for Checklists B.7. Delta Dialect for the Goal Structuring Notation B.8. Delta Dialect for EMF Ecore B.9. Delta Dialect for EMFText Concrete Syntax File

Variability and Evolution in Systems of Systems

In this position paper (1) we discuss two particular aspects of Systems of Systems, i.e., variability and evolution. (2) We argue that concepts from Product Line Engineering and Software Evolution are relevant to Systems of Systems Engineering. (3) Conversely, concepts from Systems of Systems Engineering can be helpful in Product Line Engineering and Software Evolution. Hence, we argue that an exchange of concepts between the disciplines would be beneficial.Comment: In Proceedings AiSoS 2013, arXiv:1311.319

Integrating the common variability language with multilanguage annotations for web engineering

Web applications development involves managing a high diversity of files and resources like code, pages or style sheets, implemented in different languages. To deal with the automatic generation of custom-made configurations of web applications, industry usually adopts annotation-based approaches even though the majority of studies encourage the use of composition-based approaches to implement Software Product Lines. Recent work tries to combine both approaches to get the complementary benefits. However, technological companies are reticent to adopt new development paradigms such as feature-oriented programming or aspect-oriented programming. Moreover, it is extremely difficult, or even impossible, to apply these programming models to web applications, mainly because of their multilingual nature, since their development involves multiple types of source code (Java, Groovy, JavaScript), templates (HTML, Markdown, XML), style sheet files (CSS and its variants, such as SCSS), and other files (JSON, YML, shell scripts). We propose to use the Common Variability Language as a composition-based approach and integrate annotations to manage fine grained variability of a Software Product Line for web applications. In this paper, we (i) show that existing composition and annotation-based approaches, including some well-known combinations, are not appropriate to model and implement the variability of web applications; and (ii) present a combined approach that effectively integrates annotations into a composition-based approach for web applications. We implement our approach and show its applicability with an industrial real-world system.Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech