2015
DOI: 10.1109/tse.2014.2383381
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Range Fixes: Interactive Error Resolution for Software Configuration

Abstract: To prevent ill-formed configurations, highly configurable software often allows defining constraints over the available options. As these constraints can be complex, fixing a configuration that violates one or more constraints can be challenging. Although several fix-generation approaches exist, their applicability is limited because (1) they typically generate only one fix or a very long fix list, difficult for the user to identify the desirable fix; and (2) they do not fully support non-Boolean constraints, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several approaches target at defect classes where the specification is complete, effectively avoiding the problem of weak test suites [11]. Typical defect classes include memory leaks [43], where the specification is semantically equivalent to the original program without leaks, concurrency bugs [44], [45], [46], where the specification is semantically equivalent to the original program without concurrency bugs, and configuration errors [47], where the specification can be interactively queried from the user. Though these approaches have a high precision, they target totally different defect classes compared with our work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several approaches target at defect classes where the specification is complete, effectively avoiding the problem of weak test suites [11]. Typical defect classes include memory leaks [43], where the specification is semantically equivalent to the original program without leaks, concurrency bugs [44], [45], [46], where the specification is semantically equivalent to the original program without concurrency bugs, and configuration errors [47], where the specification can be interactively queried from the user. Though these approaches have a high precision, they target totally different defect classes compared with our work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Software configuration errors (also known as misconfigurations) are errors in which the software code and the input are correct, but the software does not behave as desired because an incorrect value is used for a configuration option [55,60,62,67]. Such errors can manifest themselves as crashes, erroneous output, hangs, or silent failures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their approach is applicable to all structured documents with explicit static inconsistency rules. Along the same line, Xiong et al [191] detect and fix inconsistencies in MOF and UML models ; da Silva [162] use Prolog to propose a repair plan that fixes inconsistencies in UML models; Xiong et al [192] focuses on automatically repairing configuration errors in software product lines.…”
Section: Domain Specific Repairmentioning
confidence: 99%