Maximising the information gained from an experimental analysis of code inspection and static analysis for concurrent java components

Wojcicki, Margaret A.; Strooper, Paul

doi:10.1145/1159733.1159761

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Static analysis tools may result in false positives or false negatives (thus decreasing effectiveness), while code inspection can be time-consuming (thus increasing cost). As observed previously [21], users of static analysis tools may also become overly dependent on them.…”

Section: Suggest and Evaluate Alternatives: Experimental Approachmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Following the exploration, the combination of the static analysis tools and code inspection in the TestCon method was evaluated in a controlled experiment [21]. The results of the experiment showed that combining static analysis tools with code inspection improved the cost-effectiveness of these technologies, especially when users are not familiar with the defects they need to detect.…”

Section: Evaluating Combinations: Empirical Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selecting V&V Technology Combinations: How to Pick a Winner?

Strooper¹,

Wojcicki²

2007

12th IEEE International Conference on Engineering Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS 2007)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous software verification and validation (V&V) techniques and tools exist to analyse requirements, designs and implementations of software systems. These V&V technologies range from relatively lightweight ones, such as inspection and testing, to more heavyweight technologies based on formal methods and theorem proving. For complex systems, a significant part of the cost and effort for development and maintenance is associated with V&V activities, and this almost always involves selecting and applying a mix of V&V technologies. Unfortunately, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of individual technologies or how to derive the most cost-effective combination. As such, combinations for particular projects are typically selected in an ad-hoc way.In this paper, several issues related to the selection and evaluation of combinations of V&V technologies are explored, based on personal experiences with the V&V of concurrent Java components. A V&V method is presented that was systematically derived through an analysis of the possible failures that can occur in concurrent Java components. This method combines inspection, static analysis, and dynamic testing. In addition, empirical methods that use analysis of fault data and experiments to evaluate V&V combinations are presented. Finally, ideas are presented for an iterative method that can be used to assist with both the selection and evaluation of cost-effective V&V combinations in a given context.

show abstract

Section: Suggest and Evaluate Alternatives: Experimental Approachmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Evaluating Combinations: Empirical Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting V&V Technology Combinations: How to Pick a Winner?

Strooper¹,

Wojcicki²

2007

12th IEEE International Conference on Engineering Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS 2007)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This result was not, however, statistically significant. The exploration was followed up by Wojcicki and Strooper [29] with a formal experiment on the use of a combination of static analysis tools and inspection (steps 1-8 of TestCon). Their experiment, while once again limited in significance because of the low number of participants, provides some experimental support for costeffectiveness benefits from the combination of tools and techniques in steps 1-8 of TestCon.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Statically Analysing and Model Checking Concurrent Java Components for Deadlocks

Ngui

Strooper

Wildman

et al. 2007

2007 Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC'07)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verifying concurrent Java programs is difficult due to the many possible interleavings of threads and a number of specific concurrency defects such as interference and deadlock. To verify concurrent Java components, the TestCon method combines code inspection, static analysis and dynamic analysis. The deadlock detection steps of TestCon include static analysis (using Jlint) that may result in false positives or false negatives; therefore code inspection is combined with Jlint, but inspection can be timeconsuming and depends on the inspector's skills.In this paper, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Java PathFinder 2 (JPF 2) model checker for the detection of deadlocks in the context of the TestCon method. The results of the study show that using JPF 2 can improve TestCon's effectiveness but a trade-off has to be made in terms of cost in the development of the driver and analysis of its output. General conclusions cannot be drawn since the study was exploratory and small-scale; however the observations highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of using JPF 2 compared to static analysis and code inspection.

show abstract