Towards an extended tool for analysis of extended feature models

Achour, Ines; Labed, Lamia; Ghezala, Henda Ben

doi:10.1109/sncc.2014.6866516

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…it contains {B, D}, or {B, E}, or {B, D, E} or, (2) it is disjoint from the subtree features, i.e. it does not contain any of {B, D, E}.…”

Section: Redefining the Is-instance-of Relationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this article, BFM, a FODA-like VML, has been formalized, but the same systematic approach could have been applied to other VMLs such us OVM [51] or CUDF [69] (see Appendices A and B for details on their ongoing formalization). Recently, an extension to the BFM specified in FLAME including nonfunctional feature attributes has been presented in [2].…”

Section: A Reusable Verified Formal Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We are currently working on the identification of the metamorphic relationships in both notations in order to be able to automatically generate test cases with BeTTy [62,63]. We are also considering the formalization of other FMlike notations, such as those including cardinalities [22], or those extending features with numerical information in the form of attributes and relationships among them [8,54,2].…”

Section: Specification Of More Variability Modeling Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…if a bigger potential atomic set existed, the dead features would not be the dead features but a proper subset of themselves. 2 Proof of theorem 14 (void SPLs only have one atomic set, its fea-…”

Section: Author Biographiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, Hspl = 0%. 2 This is translated into Prolog using the common predicate forall (C,P), which succeeds if all solutions of C satisfy predicate P. In this case, the condition is the membership of X to X S, and the predicate is any predicate P on X:…”

Section: Author Biographiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

FLAME: a formal framework for the automated analysis of software product lines validated by automated specification testing

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a literature review on the last 20 years of automated analysis of feature models, the formalization of analysis operations was identified as the most relevant challenge in the field. This formalization could provide very valuable assets for tool developers such as a precise definition of the analysis operations and, what is more, a reference implementation, i.e. a trustworthy, not necessarily efficient implementation to compare different tools outputs. In this article, we present the FLAME framework as the result of facing this challenge. FLAME is a formal framework that can be used to formally specify not only feature models, but other variability modeling languages (VMLs) as well. This reusability is achieved by its two-layered architecture. The abstract foundation layer is the bottom layer in which all VMLindependent analysis operations and concepts are specified. On top of the foundation layer, a family of characteristic model layers-one for each VML to be formally specifiedcan be developed by redefining some abstract types and relations. The verification and validation of FLAME has fol- lowed a process in which formal verification has been performed traditionally by manual theorem proving, but validation has been performed by integrating our experience on metamorphic testing of variability analysis tools, something that has shown to be much more effective than manuallydesigned test cases. To follow this automated, test-based validation approach, the specification of FLAME, written in Z, was translated into Prolog and 20,000 random tests were automatically generated and executed. Tests results helped to discover some inconsistencies not only in the formal specification, but also in the previous informal definitions of the analysis operations and in current analysis tools. After this process, the Prolog implementation of FLAME is being used as a reference implementation for some tool developers, some analysis operations have been formally specified for the first time with more generic semantics, and more VMLs are being formally specified using FLAME.

show abstract

“…it contains {B, D}, or {B, E}, or {B, D, E} or, (2) it is disjoint from the subtree features, i.e. it does not contain any of {B, D, E}.…”

Section: Redefining the Is-instance-of Relationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Reusable Verified Formal Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Specification Of More Variability Modeling Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Author Biographiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Author Biographiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

FLAME: a formal framework for the automated analysis of software product lines validated by automated specification testing

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reviewing Automated Analysis of Feature Model Solutions for the Product Configuration

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feature models (FMs) appeared more than 30 years ago, and they are valuable tools for modeling the functional variability of systems. The automated analysis of feature models (AAFM) is currently a thriving, motivating, and active research area. The product configuration of FMs is a relevant and helpful operation, a crucial activity overall with large-scale feature models. The minimal conflict detection, the diagnosis of in-conflict configuration, and the product completion of consistent partial configuration are significant operations for obtaining consistent and well-defined products. Overall, configuring products for large-scale variability intensive systems (VIS) asks for efficient automated solutions for minimal conflict, diagnosis, and product configuration. Given the relevance of minimal conflict, diagnosis, and product configuration, and the current application of large-scale configuration and FMs for representing those systems and products, the main goals of this research paper are to establish the fundaments of the product configuration of feature models and systematically review existing solutions for the conflict detection, diagnosis, and product completion in FMs from 2010 to 2019. We can perceive that even though modern computing approaches exist for AAFM operations, no solutions exist for assisting the product configurations before 2020. This article reports that in 2020, new solutions appear regarding applying parallel computing for those goals. This research highlights research opportunities for developing new and more efficient solutions for conflict detection, diagnosis, and product completion of large-scale configurations.

show abstract

Towards an extended tool for analysis of extended feature models

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

FLAME: a formal framework for the automated analysis of software product lines validated by automated specification testing

FLAME: a formal framework for the automated analysis of software product lines validated by automated specification testing

Reviewing Automated Analysis of Feature Model Solutions for the Product Configuration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About