210 likes | 301 Views
Automated Verification of Model Transformations in the Automotive Industry. Gehan M. K. Selim , Fabian Büttner , James R. Cordy , Juergen Dingel , Shige Wang. Agenda. Motivation Objective The Model Transformation Problem The Verification Methodology
E N D
Automated Verification of Model Transformations in the Automotive Industry Gehan M. K. Selim, Fabian Büttner, James R. Cordy, JuergenDingel, Shige Wang
Agenda • Motivation • Objective • The Model Transformation Problem • The Verification Methodology • Case Study: Automatically Verifying the GM-2-AUTOSAR Transformation • Results • Verifying the 18 OCL Constraints • Performance of the Verification Approach • Discussion • Strengths of the Verification Approach • Weaknesses of the Verification Approach • Conclusion & Future Work
Motivation • MDD • Model Transformations • Verification Are those concepts practical to use in industry ?
Motivation • Industrial experiences in adopting MDD… • T. Cottenier, A. Van Den Berg, T. Elrad “The Motorola WEAVR: Model Weaving in a Large Industrial Context” AOSD 2007. • P. Mohagheghi, V. Dehlen “Where is the Proof?-A Review of Experiences from Applying MDE in Industry” ECMDA-FA 2008. • Few studies on industrial model transformations… • A. Daghsen, K. Chaaban, S. Saudrais, P. Leserf “Applying Holistic Distributed Scheduling to AUTOSAR Methodology” ERTSS 2010. • H. Giese, S. Hildebrandt, S. Neumann “Model Synchronization at Work: Keeping SysML and AUTOSAR Models Consistent” Graph Transformations & Model-Driven Engineering 2010. • G.Selim, S. Wang, J. Cordy, J. Dingel“Model Transformations for Migrating Legacy Models: An Industrial Case Study” ECMFA 2012 • Verifying industrial model transformations ??
Objective [1] G. Selim, S. Wang, J. Cordy, J. Dingel "Model Transformations for Migrating Legacy Models: An Industrial Case Study", ECMFA 2012 [2] F. Büttner, M. Egea, J. Cabot, M. Gogolla “Verication of ATL Transformations Using Transformation Models and Model Finders”, ICFEM 2012
The Model Transformation Problem GM Metamodel AUTOSAR Metamodel [1] G. Selim, S. Wang, J. Cordy, J. Dingel "Model Transformations for Migrating Legacy Models: An Industrial Case Study", ECMFA 2012
The Verification Methodology • Transformation Model: • Elements representing : T, • OCL Constraint sets: SEM, PRE, POST Transformation Model (OCL) [1] F. Büttner, M. Egea, J. Cabot, M. Gogolla “Verication of ATL Transformations Using Transformation Models and Model Finders”, ICFEM 2012
The Verification Methodology • Transformation Model: • Elements representing : T, • OCL Constraint sets: SEM, PRE, POST ATL Transformation T transform Source Metamodel Transformation Model (OCL) Target Metamodel [1] F. Büttner, M. Egea, J. Cabot, M. Gogolla “Verication of ATL Transformations Using Transformation Models and Model Finders”, ICFEM 2012
The Verification Methodology • For each property , the following must be unsatisfiable: [1] M. Kuhlmann, L. Hamann, M. Gogolla “Extensive Validation of OCL Models by Integrating SAT Solving into USE” TOOLS 2011 [2] The USE Validator. available online, http://sourceforge.net/projects/useocl/les/Plugins/ModelValidator/
The Verification Methodology Ecore + OCL Relational Logic Propositional Logic ATL + Ecore + OCL
Case Study: Automatically Verifying the GM-2-AUTOSAR Transformation
Case Study: Automatically Verifying the GM-2-AUTOSAR Transformation Automatically Generated by the Prototype Manually Formulated OCL Preconditions … ?
Case Study: Automatically Verifying the GM-2-AUTOSAR Transformation Context CompositionType invCompositionType_co: self.componentsize>=1
Results: Verifying the 18 OCL Constraints • 2 Multiplicity Invariants of the 18 constraints are violated • CompositionType_component • SwcToEcuMapping_component
Results: Verifying the 18 OCL Constraints • CompositionType_component
Results: Performance of the Verification Approach • Standard laptop (2.50 GHz, 16GB of memory) • Ran the verification prototype: • once for each constraint • for scopes up to 12 • For each scope& constraint, 2 numbers were generated: • Translation Time: Time taken to translate the relational logic representation of the transformation into propositional logic. • Constraint Solving Time: Time taken by SAT solver to solve the propositional representation of the transformation.
Conclusion & Future Work • Demonstrated using an automated verification prototype [1] to verify industrial transformation [2] • Result: The used prototype uncovered 2 bugs ! • Performance: Verifying the transformation up to a scope of 12 was possible ! Application of automated verification to a case study was successful & practical to use in an industrial context [1] F. Büttner, M. Egea, J. Cabot, M. Gogolla “Verication of ATL Transformations Using Transformation Models and Model Finders”, ICFEM2012 [2] G. Selim, S. Wang, J. Cordy, J. Dingel "Model Transformations for Migrating Legacy Models: An Industrial Case Study", ECMFA 2012