Using code analysis tools for architectural conformance checking

Eyck, Jo Van; Boucké, Nelis; Helleboogh, Alexander; Holvoet, Tom

doi:10.1145/1988676.1988687

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although ACC-tools predominantly check for the same kind of inconsistencies between the implemented and intended modular architecture, only a few studies have compared these tools. Previous studies have identified large differences in terminology and approach [3,5,6]. For instance, the study of Passos et al [5] identified and evaluated three techniques of static architecture checking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the accuracy of Architecture Compliance Checking support Accuracy of dependency analysis and violation reporting

Pruijt

Köppe

Brinkkemper

2013

2013 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the accuracy of Architecture Compliance Checking support Accuracy of dependency analysis and violation reporting

Pruijt

Köppe

Brinkkemper

2013

2013 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When developers mistakenly violate these decisions, this leads to the software architecture erosion phenomenon. This gap between implementation and architecture causes the system to fail to satisfy some of the intended nonfunctional properties [14].…”

Section: Architectural Conformance Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

DCL 2.0: modular and reusable specification of architectural constraints

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Due to the abstract nature of software architecture concepts, ensuring the correct implementation of architectural decisions is not a trivial task. Divergences between the planned architecture and source code may occur in the early stages of the software development, which denotes a phenomenon known as software architecture erosion. Architectural conformance checking techniques have been proposed to tackle the problem of divergences between the planned architecture and source code. Among such techniques, we can note the DCL (dependency constraint language), which is a domain-specific language that has interesting results in architectural conformance contexts. However, the current version of DCL has some limitations, such as lack of modularity and low degree of reuse, which may prevent its adoption in real software development scenarios. In this article, we extend DCL with a reusable, modular, and hierarchical specification. Method: We propose and evaluate DCL 2.0-an extension of the original DCL-and its tool in a real-world development scenario of a large system used by a government branch of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Result: We were able to detect 771 architectural violations where 74% of them could only be detected due to the new violation types proposed in DCL 2.0. Conclusion: By using DCL 2.0 herein presented, it was possible to conclude the following: (i) DCL 2.0 proved importance in helping the development team consistently address violations, and (ii) after using DCL 2.0 for months, the number of architectural violations being committed into the system branches was reduced to zero. Therefore, we argue that DCL 2.0 can have a positive impact on the architectural conformance of systems.

show abstract

“…One further strategy to cope with architecture erosion is to use query languages [18]. Queries can be executed on the source code or other relevant artifacts to, e.g., identify all classes that depend on particular other classes or packages [17]. Thus, to assess the architectural consistency, queries need to be written that identify forbidden dependencies.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Architectural Consistency Checking in Plugin-Based Software Systems

Greifenberg

Müller

Rumpe

2015

Proceedings of the 2015 European Conference on Software Architecture Workshops

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manually ensuring that the implementation of a software system is consistent with the software architecture is a laborious and error-prone task. Thus, a variety of approaches towards automated consistency checking have been developed to counteract architecture erosion. However, these approaches lack means to define and check architectural restrictions concerning plugin dependencies, which is required for plugin-based software systems.In this paper, we propose a domain-specific language called Dependency Constraint Language (DepCoL) to facilitate the definition of constraints concerning plugin dependencies. Using DepCoL, it is possible to define constraints affecting groups of plugins, reducing the required specification effort, to formulate constraints for specific plugins only and to refine constraints. Moreover, we provide an Eclipse plugin, which checks whether the software system under development is consistent with the modeled constraints. This enables a seamless integration into the development process to effortless check consistency during development of the software system. In this way, developers are informed about dependency violations immediately and this supports developers in counteracting architecture erosion.

show abstract

Using code analysis tools for architectural conformance checking

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

On the accuracy of Architecture Compliance Checking support Accuracy of dependency analysis and violation reporting

On the accuracy of Architecture Compliance Checking support Accuracy of dependency analysis and violation reporting

DCL 2.0: modular and reusable specification of architectural constraints

Architectural Consistency Checking in Plugin-Based Software Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About