A Formal Approach to Prove Compatibility in Transformation Networks

The increasing complexity of software and cyberphysical systems is handled by dividing the description of the system under construction into different models or views, each with an appropriate abstraction for the needs of specific roles. Since all such models describe the same system, they usually share an overlap of information, which can lead to inconsistencies if overlapping information is not modified uniformly in all models. A well-researched approach to make these overlaps explicit and resolve inconsistencies are incremental, bidirectional model transformations. They specify the constraints between two metamodels and the restoration of consistency between their instances. Relating more than two metamodels can be achieved by combining bidirectional transformations to a network. However, such a network may contain cycles of transformations, whose consistency constraints can be contradictory if they are not aligned with each other and thus cannot be fulfilled at the same time. Such transformations are considered incompatible. In this article, we provide a formal definition of consistency and compatibility of transformations and propose an inductive approach to prove compatibility of a given network of transformations. We prove correctness of the approach based on these formal definitions. Furthermore, we present an operationalization of the approach at the example of QVT-R. It detects contradictions between relations by transforming them into first-order logic formulae and evaluating them with an SMT solver. The approach operates conservatively, i.e., it is not able to prove compatibility in all cases, but it identifies transformations as compatible only if they actually are. We applied the approach to different evaluation networks and found that it operates conservatively and is able to properly prove compatibility in 80% of the cases, indicating its practical applicability. Its limitations especially arise from restricted capabilities of the used SMT solver, but not from conceptual shortcomings. Our approach enables multiple domain experts to define transformations independently and to check their compatibility when combining them to a network, relieving them from the necessity to align the transformations with each other a priori and to ensure compatibility manuall

Building Transformation Networks for Consistent Evolution of Interrelated Models

Complex software systems are described with multiple artifacts, such as code, design diagrams and others. Ensuring their consistency is crucial and can be automated with transformations for pairs of artifacts. We investigate how developers can combine independently developed and reusable transformations to networks that preserve consistency between more than two artifacts. We identify synchronization, compatibility and orchestration as central challenges, and we develop approaches to solve them

Designing a Change-Driven Language for Model Consistency Repair Routines

Ein Software-System kann während der Entwicklung durch verschiedene Modelle beschrieben werden, um unterschiedliche Teile oder Abstraktionen des Systems darzustellen. Diese Modelle können voneinander abhängige oder sogar redundante Informationen enthalten. Wenn ein Softwareentwickler an solchen Modellen Änderungen vornimmt ohne diese Abhängigkeiten zu beachten, können die Modelle inkonsistent werden. Ein Entwickler ist kaum in der Lage einen Überblick über alle Modelle eines Entwicklungsprozesses und deren Abhängigkeiten zu behalten. Daher sind automatisierte Verfahren zur Wiederherstellung von Konsistenz nach Modelländerungen notwendig. Existierende Methoden erlauben die deklarative Spezifikation von Abhängigkeiten zwischen Modellen, aus denen automatisiert Mechanismen zur Konsistenzerhaltung abgeleitet werden. Diese Ansätze sind in ihrer Ausdrucksmächtigkeit beschränkt und bieten nur eingeschränkten Einfluss auf die Art und Weise in der Konsistenz wiederhergestellt wird. Sie legen automatisiert eine Art der Wiederherstellung der Konsistenz fest, obwohl es verschiedene Möglichkeiten dafür gäbe. In dieser Arbeit stellen wir die änderungsgetriebene Response-Sprache für die Konsistenzerhaltung von Modellen vor. Sie erlaubt es, die Art und Weise der Wiederherstellung von Konsistenz explizit in imperativen Programmen festzulegen, welche als Reaktion auf festgelegte Änderungen ausgeführt werden. Zusätzlich bietet sie Sprachkonstrukte an, die wiederkehrende Reaktionen kapseln und wiederverwendbar machen. Wir führen einen Konsistenzbegriff mit dem Fokus auf Verständlichkeit ein und stellen eine Kategorisierung von möglichen Modelländerungen vor. Die Sprache ist entsprechend einer allgemeingültigen Struktur für die änderungsgetriebene Wiederherstellung von Konsistenz aufgebaut, welche wir aus unserem Konsistenzbegriff herleiten. Wir stellen eine Evaluation unseres Ansatzes anhand einer Fallstudie zur Konsistenzerhaltung von Architekturbeschreibungen und deren Implementierung in objektorientiertem Code vor. Die Evaluation zeigt die Anwendbarkeit der vorgestellten Sprache für die Sicherstellung von Modellkonsistenz in diesem konkreten Fall und verdeutlicht einige Vorteile gegenüber einer manuellen Implementierung der Mechanismen zur Konsistenzerhaltung

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