Contracts for Model Execution Verification

International audienceOne of the main goals of model-driven engineering is the manipulation of models as exclusive software artifacts. Model execution is in particular a means to substitute models for code. We focus in this paper on verifying model executions. We use a contract-based approach to specify an execution semantics for a meta-model. We show that an execution semantics is a seamless extension of a rigorous meta-model specification and is composed of complementary levels, from static element definition to dynamic elements, execution specifications as well. We use model transformation contracts for controlling the dynamic consistent evolution of a model during its execution. As an illustration, we apply our approach to UML state machines using OCL as the contract expression language

Soft Contract Verification

Behavioral software contracts are a widely used mechanism for governing the flow of values between components. However, run-time monitoring and enforcement of contracts imposes significant overhead and delays discovery of faulty components to run-time. To overcome these issues, we present soft contract verification, which aims to statically prove either complete or partial contract correctness of components, written in an untyped, higher-order language with first-class contracts. Our approach uses higher-order symbolic execution, leveraging contracts as a source of symbolic values including unknown behavioral values, and employs an updatable heap of contract invariants to reason about flow-sensitive facts. We prove the symbolic execution soundly approximates the dynamic semantics and that verified programs can't be blamed. The approach is able to analyze first-class contracts, recursive data structures, unknown functions, and control-flow-sensitive refinements of values, which are all idiomatic in dynamic languages. It makes effective use of an off-the-shelf solver to decide problems without heavy encodings. The approach is competitive with a wide range of existing tools---including type systems, flow analyzers, and model checkers---on their own benchmarks.Comment: ICFP '14, September 1-6, 2014, Gothenburg, Swede