Spreadsheet-based Configuration of Families of Real-Time Specifications

Model checking real-time systems is complex, and requires a careful trade-off between including enough detail to be useful and not too much detail to avoid state explosion. This work exploits variability of the formal model being analysed and the requirements being checked, to facilitate the model-checking of variations of real-time specifications. This work results from the collaboration between academics and Alstom, a railway company with a concrete use-case, in the context of the VALU3S European project. The configuration of the variability of the formal specifications is described in MS Excel spreadsheets with a particular structure, making it easy to use also by developers. These spreadsheets are processed automatically by our prototype tool that generates instances and runs the model checker. We propose the extension of our previous work by exploiting analysis over valid combination of features, while preserving the simplicity of a spreadsheet-based interface with the model checker.Comment: In Proceedings TiCSA 2023, arXiv:2310.1872

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

Modellbasiertes Regressionstesten von Varianten und Variantenversionen

The quality assurance of software product lines (SPL) achieved via testing is a crucial and challenging activity of SPL engineering. In general, the application of single-software testing techniques for SPL testing is not practical as it leads to the individual testing of a potentially vast number of variants. Testing each variant in isolation further results in redundant testing processes by means of redundant test-case executions due to the shared commonality. Existing techniques for SPL testing cope with those challenges, e.g., by identifying samples of variants to be tested. However, each variant is still tested separately without taking the explicit knowledge about the shared commonality and variability into account to reduce the overall testing effort. Furthermore, due to the increasing longevity of software systems, their development has to face software evolution. Hence, quality assurance has also to be ensured after SPL evolution by testing respective versions of variants. In this thesis, we tackle the challenges of testing redundancy as well as evolution by proposing a framework for model-based regression testing of evolving SPLs. The framework facilitates efficient incremental testing of variants and versions of variants by exploiting the commonality and reuse potential of test artifacts and test results. Our contribution is divided into three parts. First, we propose a test-modeling formalism capturing the variability and version information of evolving SPLs in an integrated fashion. The formalism builds the basis for automatic derivation of reusable test cases and for the application of change impact analysis to guide retest test selection. Second, we introduce two techniques for incremental change impact analysis to identify (1) changing execution dependencies to be retested between subsequently tested variants and versions of variants, and (2) the impact of an evolution step to the variant set in terms of modified, new and unchanged versions of variants. Third, we define a coverage-driven retest test selection based on a new retest coverage criterion that incorporates the results of the change impact analysis. The retest test selection facilitates the reduction of redundantly executed test cases during incremental testing of variants and versions of variants. The framework is prototypically implemented and evaluated by means of three evolving SPLs showing that it achieves a reduction of the overall effort for testing evolving SPLs.Testen ist ein wichtiger Bestandteil der Entwicklung von Softwareproduktlinien (SPL). Aufgrund der potentiell sehr großen Anzahl an Varianten einer SPL ist deren individueller Test im Allgemeinen nicht praktikabel und resultiert zudem in redundanten Testfallausführungen, die durch die Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen Varianten entstehen. Existierende SPL-Testansätze adressieren diese Herausforderungen z.B. durch die Reduktion der Anzahl an zu testenden Varianten. Jedoch wird weiterhin jede Variante unabhängig getestet, ohne dabei das Wissen über Gemeinsamkeiten und Variabilität auszunutzen, um den Testaufwand zu reduzieren. Des Weiteren muss sich die SPL-Entwicklung mit der Evolution von Software auseinandersetzen. Dies birgt weitere Herausforderungen für das SPL-Testen, da nicht nur für Varianten sondern auch für ihre Versionen die Qualität sichergestellt werden muss. In dieser Arbeit stellen wir ein Framework für das modellbasierte Regressionstesten von evolvierenden SPL vor, das die Herausforderungen des redundanten Testens und der Software-Evolution adressiert. Das Framework vereint Testmodellierung, Änderungsauswirkungsanalyse und automatische Testfallselektion, um einen inkrementellen Testprozess zu definieren, der Varianten und Variantenversionen unter Ausnutzung des Wissens über gemeinsame Funktionalität und dem Wiederverwendungspotential von Testartefakten und -resultaten effizient testet. Für die Testmodellierung entwickeln wir einen Ansatz, der Variabilitäts- sowie Versionsinformation von evolvierenden SPL gleichermaßen für die Modellierung einbezieht. Für die Änderungsauswirkungsanalyse definieren wir zwei Techniken, um zum einen Änderungen in Ausführungsabhängigkeiten zwischen zu testenden Varianten und ihren Versionen zu identifizieren und zum anderen die Auswirkungen eines Evolutionsschrittes auf die Variantenmenge zu bestimmen und zu klassifizieren. Für die Testfallselektion schlagen wir ein Abdeckungskriterium vor, das die Resultate der Auswirkungsanalyse einbezieht, um automatisierte Entscheidungen über einen Wiederholungstest von wiederverwendbaren Testfällen durchzuführen. Die abdeckungsgetriebene Testfallselektion ermöglicht somit die Reduktion der redundanten Testfallausführungen während des inkrementellen Testens von Varianten und Variantenversionen. Das Framework ist prototypisch implementiert und anhand von drei evolvierenden SPL evaluiert. Die Resultate zeigen, dass eine Aufwandsreduktion für das Testen evolvierender SPL erreicht wird

Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering

computer software maintenance; computer software selection and evaluation; formal logic; formal methods; formal specification; programming languages; semantics; software engineering; specifications; verificatio

Model-based Quality Assurance of Cyber-Physical Systems with Variability in Space, over Time and at Runtime

Cyber-physical systems (CPS) are frequently characterized by three essential properties: CPS perform complex computations, CPS conduct control tasks involving continuous data- and signal-processing, and CPS are (parts of) distributed, and even mobile, communication systems. In addition, modern software systems like CPS have to cope with ever-growing extents of variability, namely variability in space by means of predefined configuration options (e.g., software product lines), variability at runtime by means of preplanned reconfigurations (e.g., runtime-adaptive systems), and variability over time by means of initially unforeseen updates to new versions (e.g., software evolution). Finally, depending on the particular application domain, CPS often constitute safety- and mission-critical parts of socio-technical systems. Thus, novel quality-assurance methodologies are required to systematically cope with the interplay between the different CPS characteristics on the one hand, and the different dimensions of variability on the other hand. This thesis gives an overview on recent research and open challenges in model-based specification and quality-assurance of CPS in the presence of variability. The main focus of this thesis is laid on computation and communication aspects of CPS, utilizing evolving dynamic software product lines as engineering methodology and model-based testing as quality-assurance technique. The research is illustrated and evaluated by means of case studies from different application domains

Uncertainty representation in software models: a survey

This paper provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of research work on how uncertainty is currently represented in software models. The survey presents the definitions and current research status of different proposals for addressing uncertainty modeling and introduces a classification framework that allows to compare and classify existing proposals, analyze their current status and identify new trends. In addition, we discuss possible future research directions, opportunities and challenges.This work is partially supported by the European Commission (FEDER) and the Spanish Government under projects APOLO (US1264651), HORATIO (RTI2018-101204-B-C21), EKIPMENT-PLUS (P18-FR-2895) and COSCA (PGC2018-094905-B-I00)

A SCOPING STUDY: Development of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Models for Reactivity Insertion Accidents During Shutdown In U.S. Commercial Light Water Reactors

This report documents the scoping study of developing generic simplified fuel damage risk models for quantitative analysis from inadvertent reactivity insertion events during shutdown (SD) in light water pressurized and boiling water reactors. In the past, nuclear fuel reactivity accidents have been analyzed both mainly deterministically and probabilistically for at-power and SD operations of nuclear power plants (NPPs). Since then, many NPPs had power up-rates and longer refueling intervals, which resulted in fuel configurations that may potentially respond differently (in an undesirable way) to reactivity accidents. Also, as shown in a recent event, several inadvertent operator actions caused potential nuclear fuel reactivity insertion accident during SD operations. The set inadvertent operator actions are likely to be plant- and operation-state specific and could lead to accident sequences. This study is an outcome of the concern which arose after the inadvertent withdrawal of control rods at Dresden Unit 3 in 2008 due to operator actions in the plant inadvertently three control rods were withdrawn from the reactor without knowledge of the main control room operator. The purpose of this Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) Model development project is to develop simplified SPAR Models that can be used by staff analysts to perform risk analyses of operating events and/or conditions occurring during SD operation. These types of accident scenarios are dominated by the operator actions, (e.g., misalignment of valves, failure to follow procedures and errors of commissions). Human error probabilities specific to this model were assessed using the methodology developed for SPAR model human error evaluations. The event trees, fault trees, basic event data and data sources for the model are provided in the report. The end state is defined as the reactor becomes critical. The scoping study includes a brief literature search/review of historical events, developments of a small set of comprehensive event trees and fault trees and recommendation for future work

A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines

[EN] It is widely accepted that software measures provide an appropriate mechanism for understanding, monitoring, controlling, and predicting the quality of software development projects. In software product lines (SPL), quality is even more important than in a single software product since, owing to systematic reuse, a fault or an inadequate design decision could be propagated to several products in the family. Over the last few years, a great number of quality attributes and measures for assessing the quality of SPL have been reported in literature. However, no studies summarizing the current knowledge about them exist. This paper presents a systematic literature review with the objective of identifying and interpreting all the available studies from 1996 to 2010 that present quality attributes and/or measures for SPL. These attributes and measures have been classified using a set of criteria that includes the life cycle phase in which the measures are applied; the corresponding quality characteristics; their support for specific SPL characteristics (e. g., variability, compositionality); the procedure used to validate the measures, etc. We found 165 measures related to 97 different quality attributes. The results of the review indicated that 92% of the measures evaluate attributes that are related to maintainability. In addition, 67% of the measures are used during the design phase of Domain Engineering, and 56% are applied to evaluate the product line architecture. However, only 25% of them have been empirically validated. In conclusion, the results provide a global vision of the state of the research within this area in order to help researchers in detecting weaknesses, directing research efforts, and identifying new research lines. In particular, there is a need for new measures with which to evaluate both the quality of the artifacts produced during the entire SPL life cycle and other quality characteristics. There is also a need for more validation (both theoretical and empirical) of existing measures. In addition, our results may be useful as a reference guide for practitioners to assist them in the selection or the adaptation of existing measures for evaluating their software product lines. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.This research has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under the MULTIPLE (Multimodeling Approach For Quality-Aware Software Product Lines) project with ref. TIN2009-13838.Montagud Gregori, S.; Abrahao Gonzales, SM.; Insfrán Pelozo, CE. (2012). A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines. Software Quality Journal. 20(3-4):425-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9146-7S425486203-4Abdelmoez, W., Nassar, D. M., Shereschevsky, M., Gradetsky, N., Gunnalan, R., Ammar, H. H., et al. (2004). Error propagation in software architectures. In 10th international symposium on software metrics (METRICS), Chicago, Illinois, USA.Ajila, S. A., & Dumitrescu, R. T. (2007). Experimental use of code delta, code churn, and rate of change to understand software product line evolution. Journal of Systems and Software, 80, 74–91.Aldekoa, G., Trujillo, S., Sagardui, G., & Díaz, O. (2006). Experience measuring maintainability in software product lines. In XV Jornadas de Ingeniería del Software y Bases de Datos (JISBD). Barcelona.Aldekoa, G., Trujillo, S., Sagardui, G., & Díaz, O. (2008). Quantifying maintanibility in feature oriented product lines, Athens, Greece, pp. 243–247.Alves de Oliveira Junior, E., Gimenes, I. M. S., & Maldonado, J. C. (2008). A metric suite to support software product line architecture evaluation. In XXXIV Conferencia Latinamericana de Informática (CLEI), Santa Fé, Argentina, pp. 489–498.Alves, V., Niu, N., Alves, C., & Valença, G. (2010). Requirements engineering for software product lines: A systematic literature review. Information & Software Technology, 52(8), 806–820.Bosch, J. (2000). Design and use of software architectures: Adopting and evolving a product line approach. USA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Briand, L. C., Differing, C. M., & Rombach, D. (1996a). Practical guidelines for measurement-based process improvement. Software Process-Improvement and Practice, 2, 253–280.Briand, L. C., Morasca, S., & Basili, V. R. (1996b). Property based software engineering measurement. IEEE Transactions on Software Eng., 22(1), 68–86.Calero, C., Ruiz, J., & Piattini, M. (2005). Classifying web metrics using the web quality model. Online Information Review, 29(3): 227–248.Chen, L., Ali Babar, M., & Ali, N. (2009). Variability management in software product lines: A systematic review. In 13th international software product lines conferences (SPLC), San Francisco, USA.Clements, P., & Northrop, L. (2002). Software product lines. 2003. Software product lines practices and patterns. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Crnkovic, I., & Larsson, M. (2004). Classification of quality attributes for predictability in component-based systems. Journal of Econometrics, pp. 231–250.Conference Rankings of Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia (CORE). (2010). Available in http://core.edu.au/index.php/categories/conference%20rankings/1 .Davis, A., Dieste, Ó., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., & Moreno, A. M. (2006). Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: Empirical results derived from a systematic review. In 14th IEEE international conference requirements engineering, pp. 179–188.de Souza Filho, E. D., de Oliveira Cavalcanti, R., Neiva, D. F. S., Oliveira, T. H. B., Barachisio Lisboa, L., de Almeida E. S., & de Lemos Meira, S. R. (2008). Evaluating domain design approaches using systematic review. In 2nd European conference on software architecture, Cyprus, pp. 50–65.Ejiogu, L. (1991). Software engineering with formal metrics. QED Publishing.Engström, E., & Runeson, P. (2011). Software product line testing—A systematic mapping study. Information & Software Technology, 53(1), 2–13.Etxeberria, L., Sagarui, G., & Belategi, L. (2008). Quality aware software product line engineering. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 14(1), Campinas Mar.Ganesan, D., Knodel, J., Kolb, R., Haury, U., & Meier, G. (2007). Comparing costs and benefits of different test strategies for a software product line: A study from Testo AG. In 11th international software product line conference, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 74–83, September 2007.Gómez, O., Oktaba, H., Piattini, M., & García, F. (2006). A systematic review measurement in software engineering: State-of-the-art in measures. In First international conference on software and data technologies (ICSOFT), Setúbal, Portugal, pp. 11–14.IEEE standard for a software quality metrics methodology, IEEE Std 1061-1998, 1998.Inoki, M., & Fukazawa, Y. (2007). Software product line evolution method based on Kaizen approach. In 22nd annual ACM symposium on applied computing, Korea.Insfran, E., & Fernandez, A. (2008). A systematic review of usability evaluation in Web development. 2nd international workshop on web usability and accessibility (IWWUA’08), New Zealand, LNCS 5176, Springer, pp. 81–91.ISO/IEC 25010. (2008). Systems and software engineering. Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). System and software quality models.ISO/IEC 9126. (2000). Software engineering. Product Quality.Johansson, E., & Höst, R. (2002). Tracking degradation in software product lines through measurement of design rule violations. In 14th International conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering, Ischia, Italy, pp. 249–254.Journal Citation Reports of Thomson Reuters. (2010). Available in http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports/ .Khurum, M., & Gorschek, T. (2009). A systematic review of domain analysis solutions for product lines. The Journal of Systems and Software.Kim, T., Ko, I. Y., Kang, S. W., & Lee, D. H. (2008). Extending ATAM to assess product line architecture. In 8th IEEE international conference on computer and information technology, pp. 790–797.Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Version 2.3, EBSE Technical Report, Keele University, UK.Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S., & Fenton, N. (1995). Towards a framework for software measurement validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(12).Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.Mendes, E. (2005). A systematic review of Web engineering research. International symposium on empirical software engineering. Noosa Heads, Australia.Meyer, M. H., & Dalal, D. (2002). Managing platform architectures and manufacturing processes for non assembled products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(4), 277–293.Montagud, S., & Abrahão, S. (2009). Gathering Current knowledge about quality evaluation in software product lines. In 13th international software product lines conferences (SPLC), San Francisco, USA.Montagud, S., & Abrahão, S. (2009). A SQuaRE-bassed quality evaluation method for software product lines. Master’s thesis, December 2009 (in Spanish).Needham, D., & Jones, S. (2006). A software fault tree metric. In 22nd international conference on software maintenance (ICSM), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.Niemelä, E., & Immonen, A. (2007). Capturing quality requirements of product family architecture. Information and Software Technology, 49(11–12), 1107–1120.Odia, O. E. (2007). Testing in software product lines. Master Thesis Software Engineering of School of Engineering, Bleking Institute of Technology. Thesis no. MSE-2007:16, Sweden.Olumofin, F. G., & Mišić, V. B. (2007). A holistic architecture assessment method for software product lines. Information and Software Technology, 49, 309–323.Pérez Lamancha, B., Polo Usaola, M., & Piattini Velthius, M. (2009). Software product line testing—a systematic review. ICSOFT, (1), 23–30.Poels, G., & Dedene, G. (2000). Distance-based software measurement: necessary and sufficient properties for software measures. Information and Software Technology, 42(I), 35–46.Prehofer, C., van Gurp, J., & Bosch, J. (2008). Compositionality in software platforms. In Emerging methods, technologies and process management in software engineering. Wiley.Rahman, A. (2004). Metrics for the structural assessment of product line architecture. Master Thesis on Software Engineering, Thesis no. MSE-2004:24. School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden.Sethi, K., Cai, Y., Wong, S., Garcia, A., & Sant’Anna, C. (2009). From retrospect to prospect: Assessing modularity and stability from software architecture. Joint working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture, 2009 & European conference on software architecture. WICSA/ECSA.Shaik, I., Abdelmoez, W,. Gunnalan, R., Shereshevsky, M., Zeid, A., Ammar, H. H., et al. (2005). Change propagation for assessing design quality of software architectures. 5th working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture (WICSA’05).Siegmund, N., Rosenmüller, M., Kuhlemann, M., Kästner, C., & Saake, G. (2008). Measuring non-functional properties in software product lines for product derivation. In 15th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference, Beijing, China.Sun Her, J., Hyeok Kim, J., Hun Oh, S., Yul Rhew, S., & Dong Kim, S. (2007). A framework for evaluating reusability of core asset in product line engineering. Information and Software Technology, 49, 740–760.Svahnberg, M., & Bosch, J. (2000). Evolution in software product lines. In 3rd international workshop on software architectures for products families (IWSAPF-3). Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.Van der Hoek, A., Dincel, E., & Medidović, N. (2003). Using services utilization metrics to assess the structure of product line architectures. In 9th international software metrics symposium (METRICS), Sydney, Australia.Van der Linden, F., Schmid, K., & Rommes, E. (2007). Software product lines in action. Springer.Whitmire, S. (1997). Object oriented design measurement. John Wiley & Sons.Wnuk, K., Regnell, B., & Karlsson, L. (2009). What happened to our features? Visualization and understanding of scope change dynamics in a large-scale industrial setting. In 17th IEEE international requirements engineering conference.Yoshimura, K., Ganesan, D., & Muthig, D. (2006). Assessing merge potential of existing engine control systems into a product line. In International workshop on software engineering for automative systems, Shangai, China, pp. 61–67.Zhang, T., Deng, L., Wu, J., Zhou, Q., & Ma, C. (2008). Some metrics for accessing quality of product line architecture. In International conference on computer science and software engineering (CSSE), Wuhan, China, pp. 500–503