Variability Driven Quality Evaluation in Software Product Lines

Etxeberria, Leire; Sagardui, Goiuria

doi:10.1109/splc.2008.37

Cited by 38 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, E. Bagheri, M. Asadi, D. Gasevic and S. Soltani [28] extend feature models with the meta-class to represent non-functional requirements. L. Etxeberria and G. Sagardui [29] create a quality feature tree in a feature model to represent nonfunctional requirements. Another paper by L. Belategi, G. Sagardui and L. Etxeberria [30] also uses a quality feature tree to model non-functional requirements and a MARTE profile for platform resource representation.…”

Section: B Integrated Variability Documentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-based systems engineering with requirements variability for embedded real-time systems

Batmaz

Guan

et al. 2015

2015 IEEE International Model-Driven Requirements Engineering Workshop (MoDRE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additional Information:• it proposes a mechanism for the evolution of variability; 3. stakeholders' specifications for variable requirements are extended by the proposed approach; 4. it increases the consistency of system models by directly using SysML Activity Diagrams and Block Definition Diagrams as a base model for refining variability models for requirement representation. The proposed method is illustrated by an Aircraft Engine Control System case study.

show abstract

Section: B Integrated Variability Documentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-based systems engineering with requirements variability for embedded real-time systems

Batmaz

Guan

et al. 2015

2015 IEEE International Model-Driven Requirements Engineering Workshop (MoDRE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several techniques have been proposed for evaluating quality attributes (Etxeberria and Sagardui, 2008;Immonen, 2006;Olumofin and Misic, 2005) to guide a configuration process. These techniques provide a framework for assessing the impact of each feature selection on the overall capabilities of the configured system.…”

Section: Automated Single-step Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolving feature model configurations in software product lines

White

Galindo

Saxena

et al. 2014

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe increasing complexity and cost of software-intensive systems has led developers to seek ways of reusing software components across development projects. One approach to increasing software reusability is to develop a software product-line (SPL), which is a software architecture that can be reconfigured and reused across projects. Rather than developing software from scratch for a new project, a new configuration of the SPL is produced. It is hard, however, to find a configuration of an SPL that meets an arbitrary requirement set and does not violate any configuration constraints in the SPL.Existing research has focused on techniques that produce a configuration of an SPL in a single step. Budgetary constraints or other restrictions, however, may require multi-step configuration processes. For example, an aircraft manufacturer may want to produce a series of configurations of a plane over a span of years without exceeding a yearly budget to add features.This paper provides three contributions to the study of multi-step configuration for SPLs. First, we present a formal model of multi-step SPL configuration and map this model to constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). Second, we show how solutions to these SPL configuration problems can be automatically derived with a constraint solver by mapping them to CSPs. Moreover, we show how feature model changes can be mapped to our approach in a multi-step scenario by using feature model drift. Third, we present empirical results demonstrating that our CSP-based reasoning technique can scale to SPL models with hundreds of features and multiple configuration steps.

show abstract

“…Unlike CURE, however, these methods are used in the design phase to construct an initial system configuration, whereas CURE is used to correct flawed feature selections. Etxeberria and Sagardui (2008) present a manual technique for using domain-relevant quality attributes to evaluate variants in product line architectures. An additional quality feature tree can be added as a branch to extended feature models.…”

Section: Configuration Quality Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Feature selection can therefore determine the overall quality of a system configuration and assure that the system possesses necessary functionality. Again, CURE is a corrective technique for restoring validity to flawed feature selections, whereas the method in Etxeberria and Sagardui (2008) is used during the design phase to determine valid initial configurations.…”

Section: Configuration Quality Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated diagnosis of feature model configurations

White

Benavides

Schmidt

et al. 2010

Journal of Systems and Software

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software product-lines (SPLs) are software architectures that can be readily reconfigured for different project requirements. A key part of an SPL is a model that captures the rules for reconfiguring the software. SPLs commonly use feature models to capture SPL configuration rules. Each SPL configuration is represented as a selection of features from the feature model. Invalid SPL configurations can be created due to feature conflicts introduced via staged or parallel configuration or changes to the constraints in a feature model. When invalid configurations are created, a method is needed to automate the diagnosis of the errors and repair the feature selections.This paper provides two contributions to research on automated configuration of SPLs. First, it shows how configurations and feature models can be transformed into constraint satisfaction problems to automatically diagnose errors and repair invalid feature selections. Second, it presents empirical results from diagnosing configuration errors in feature models ranging in size from 100 to 5,000 features. The results of our experiments show that our CSP-based diagnostic technique can scale up to models with thousands of features.

show abstract

Variability Driven Quality Evaluation in Software Product Lines

Cited by 38 publications

References 12 publications

Model-based systems engineering with requirements variability for embedded real-time systems

Model-based systems engineering with requirements variability for embedded real-time systems

Evolving feature model configurations in software product lines

Automated diagnosis of feature model configurations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About