体系结构符合性检查的准确性支持依赖性分析和违例报告的准确性

Leo Pruijt, C. Köppe, S. Brinkkemper
{"title":"体系结构符合性检查的准确性支持依赖性分析和违例报告的准确性","authors":"Leo Pruijt, C. Köppe, S. Brinkkemper","doi":"10.1109/ICPC.2013.6613845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Architecture Compliance Checking (ACC) is useful to bridge the gap between architecture and implementation. ACC is an approach to verify conformance of implemented program code to high-level models of architectural design. Static ACC focuses on the modular software architecture and on the existence of rule violating dependencies between modules. Accurate tool support is essential for effective and efficient ACC. This paper presents a study on the accuracy of ACC tools regarding dependency analysis and violation reporting. Seven tools were tested and compared by means of a custom-made test application. In addition, the code of open source system Freemind was used to compare the tools on the number and precision of reported violation and dependency messages. On the average, 74 percent of 34 dependency types in our custom-made test software were reported, while 69 percent of 109 violating dependencies within a module of Freemind were reported. The test results show large differences between the tools, but all tools could improve the accuracy of the reported dependencies and violations.","PeriodicalId":237170,"journal":{"name":"2013 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the accuracy of Architecture Compliance Checking support Accuracy of dependency analysis and violation reporting\",\"authors\":\"Leo Pruijt, C. Köppe, S. Brinkkemper\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ICPC.2013.6613845\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Architecture Compliance Checking (ACC) is useful to bridge the gap between architecture and implementation. ACC is an approach to verify conformance of implemented program code to high-level models of architectural design. Static ACC focuses on the modular software architecture and on the existence of rule violating dependencies between modules. Accurate tool support is essential for effective and efficient ACC. This paper presents a study on the accuracy of ACC tools regarding dependency analysis and violation reporting. Seven tools were tested and compared by means of a custom-made test application. In addition, the code of open source system Freemind was used to compare the tools on the number and precision of reported violation and dependency messages. On the average, 74 percent of 34 dependency types in our custom-made test software were reported, while 69 percent of 109 violating dependencies within a module of Freemind were reported. The test results show large differences between the tools, but all tools could improve the accuracy of the reported dependencies and violations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":237170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2013 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2013 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2013.6613845\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2013 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2013.6613845","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

体系结构遵从性检查(ACC)对于弥合体系结构和实现之间的差距非常有用。ACC是一种验证已实现的程序代码与架构设计的高级模型是否一致的方法。静态ACC侧重于模块化软件体系结构和模块之间存在的违反规则的依赖关系。准确的工具支持对于有效和高效的ACC至关重要。本文对ACC工具在依赖性分析和违例报告方面的准确性进行了研究。通过定制的测试应用程序对七个工具进行了测试和比较。此外,使用开源系统Freemind的代码来比较这些工具报告的违反和依赖消息的数量和精度。平均而言,在我们定制的测试软件中34个依赖类型中的74%被报告了,而在Freemind的一个模块中109个违反依赖类型中的69%被报告了。测试结果显示了这些工具之间的巨大差异,但是所有的工具都可以提高报告的依赖项和违反的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the accuracy of Architecture Compliance Checking support Accuracy of dependency analysis and violation reporting
Architecture Compliance Checking (ACC) is useful to bridge the gap between architecture and implementation. ACC is an approach to verify conformance of implemented program code to high-level models of architectural design. Static ACC focuses on the modular software architecture and on the existence of rule violating dependencies between modules. Accurate tool support is essential for effective and efficient ACC. This paper presents a study on the accuracy of ACC tools regarding dependency analysis and violation reporting. Seven tools were tested and compared by means of a custom-made test application. In addition, the code of open source system Freemind was used to compare the tools on the number and precision of reported violation and dependency messages. On the average, 74 percent of 34 dependency types in our custom-made test software were reported, while 69 percent of 109 violating dependencies within a module of Freemind were reported. The test results show large differences between the tools, but all tools could improve the accuracy of the reported dependencies and violations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信