Bentley James Oakes, Javier Troya, Jessie Galasso, Manuel Wimmer
{"title":"Fault localization in DSLTrans model transformations by combining symbolic execution and spectrum-based analysis","authors":"Bentley James Oakes, Javier Troya, Jessie Galasso, Manuel Wimmer","doi":"10.1007/s10270-023-01123-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The verification of model transformations is important for realizing robust model-driven engineering technologies and quality-assured automation. Many approaches for checking properties of model transformations have been proposed. Most of them have focused on the effective and efficient detection of property violations by contract checking. However, there remains the fault localization step between identifying a failing contract for a transformation based on verification feedback and precisely identifying the faulty rules. While there exist fault localization approaches in the model transformation verification literature, these require the creation and maintenance of test cases , which imposes an additional burden on the developer. In this paper, we combine transformation verification based on symbolic execution with spectrum-based fault localization techniques for identifying the faulty rules in DSLTrans model transformations. This fault localization approach operates on the path condition output of symbolic transformation checkers instead of requiring a set of test input models. In particular, we introduce a workflow for running the symbolic execution of a model transformation, evaluating the defined contracts for satisfaction, and computing different measures for tracking the faulty rules. We evaluate the effectiveness of spectrum-based analysis techniques for tracking faulty rules and compare our approach to previous works. We evaluate our technique by introducing known mutations into five model transformations. Our results show that the best spectrum-based analysis techniques allow for effective fault localization, showing an average EXAM score below 0.30 (less than 30% of the transformation needs to be inspected). These techniques are also able to locate the faulty rule in the top-three ranked rules in 70% of all cases. The impact of the model transformation, the type of mutation and the type of contract on the results is discussed. Finally, we also investigate the cases where the technique does not work properly, including discussion of a potential pre-check to estimate the prospects of the technique for a certain transformation.","PeriodicalId":49507,"journal":{"name":"Software and Systems Modeling","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Software and Systems Modeling","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-023-01123-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract The verification of model transformations is important for realizing robust model-driven engineering technologies and quality-assured automation. Many approaches for checking properties of model transformations have been proposed. Most of them have focused on the effective and efficient detection of property violations by contract checking. However, there remains the fault localization step between identifying a failing contract for a transformation based on verification feedback and precisely identifying the faulty rules. While there exist fault localization approaches in the model transformation verification literature, these require the creation and maintenance of test cases , which imposes an additional burden on the developer. In this paper, we combine transformation verification based on symbolic execution with spectrum-based fault localization techniques for identifying the faulty rules in DSLTrans model transformations. This fault localization approach operates on the path condition output of symbolic transformation checkers instead of requiring a set of test input models. In particular, we introduce a workflow for running the symbolic execution of a model transformation, evaluating the defined contracts for satisfaction, and computing different measures for tracking the faulty rules. We evaluate the effectiveness of spectrum-based analysis techniques for tracking faulty rules and compare our approach to previous works. We evaluate our technique by introducing known mutations into five model transformations. Our results show that the best spectrum-based analysis techniques allow for effective fault localization, showing an average EXAM score below 0.30 (less than 30% of the transformation needs to be inspected). These techniques are also able to locate the faulty rule in the top-three ranked rules in 70% of all cases. The impact of the model transformation, the type of mutation and the type of contract on the results is discussed. Finally, we also investigate the cases where the technique does not work properly, including discussion of a potential pre-check to estimate the prospects of the technique for a certain transformation.
期刊介绍:
We invite authors to submit papers that discuss and analyze research challenges and experiences pertaining to software and system modeling languages, techniques, tools, practices and other facets. The following are some of the topic areas that are of special interest, but the journal publishes on a wide range of software and systems modeling concerns:
Domain-specific models and modeling standards;
Model-based testing techniques;
Model-based simulation techniques;
Formal syntax and semantics of modeling languages such as the UML;
Rigorous model-based analysis;
Model composition, refinement and transformation;
Software Language Engineering;
Modeling Languages in Science and Engineering;
Language Adaptation and Composition;
Metamodeling techniques;
Measuring quality of models and languages;
Ontological approaches to model engineering;
Generating test and code artifacts from models;
Model synthesis;
Methodology;
Model development tool environments;
Modeling Cyberphysical Systems;
Data intensive modeling;
Derivation of explicit models from data;
Case studies and experience reports with significant modeling lessons learned;
Comparative analyses of modeling languages and techniques;
Scientific assessment of modeling practices