Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Decade of Featured Transition Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
From Software Engineering to Formal Methods and Tools, and Back

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 11865))

Abstract

Variability-intensive systems (VIS) form a large and heterogeneous class of systems whose behaviour can be modified by enabling or disabling predefined features. Variability mechanisms allows the adaptation of software to the needs of their users and the environment. However, VIS verification and validation (V&V) is challenging: the combinatorial explosion of the number of possible behaviours and undesired feature interactions are amongst such challenges. To tackle them, Featured Transitions Systems (FTS) were proposed a decade ago to model and verify the behaviours of VIS. In an FTS, each transition is annotated with a combination of features determining which variants can execute it. An FTS can model all possible behaviours of a given VIS. This compact model enabled us to create efficient V&V algorithms taking advantage of the behaviours shared amongst features resulting in a reduction of the V&V effort by several orders of magnitude. In this paper, we will cover the formalism, its applications and sketch promising research directions.

Gilles Perrouin is a research associate at the FNRS. This research was partially funded by the EU Project STAMP ICT-16-10 No. 731529, the NIRICT 3TU.BSR (Big Software on the Run) project, the EOS project VeriLearn under FNRS Grant O05518F-RG03.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Al-Hajjaji, M., Thüm, T., Meinicke, J., Lochau, M., Saake, G.: Similarity-based prioritization in software product-line testing. In: 18th International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 2014, Florence, Italy, 15–19 September 2014, pp. 197–206 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2648511.2648532

  2. Apel, S., Batory, D., Kästner, C., Saake, G.: Feature-Oriented Software Product Lines: Concepts and Implementation. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37521-7

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Apel, S., von Rhein, A., Wendler, P., Größlinger, A., Beyer, D.: Strategies for product-line verification: case studies and experiments. In: ICSE 2013, pp. 482–491 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Asirelli, P., ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Fantechi, A.: Formal description of variability in product families. In: 15th International Conference on Software Product Lines, SPLC 2011, Munich, Germany, 22–26 August 2011, pp. 130–139 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Atlee, J.M., Beidu, S., Fahrenberg, U., Legay, A.: Merging features in featured transition systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Model-Driven Engineering, Verification and Validation Co-located with ACM/IEEE 18th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MoDeVVa@MoDELS 2015, Ottawa, Canada, 29 September 2015, pp. 38–43. CEUR-WS.org (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baier, C., Katoen, J.P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. ter Beek, M.H., Damiani, F., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F., Paolini, L.: From featured transition systems to modal transition systems with variability constraints. In: Calinescu, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) SEFM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9276, pp. 344–359. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22969-0_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: Modelling and analysing variability in product families: model checking of modal transition systems with variability constraints. J. Log. Algebr. Meth. Program. 85(2), 287–315 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlamp.2015.11.006

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. ter Beek, M.H., Legay, A., Lluch-Lafuente, A., Vandin, A.: Statistical analysis of probabilistic models of software product lines with quantitative constraints. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line, SPLC 2015, Nashville, TN, USA, 20–24 July 2015, pp. 11–15. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ter Beek, M.H., de Vink, E.P., Willemse, T.A.C.: Family-based model checking with mCRL2. In: Huisman, M., Rubin, J. (eds.) FASE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10202, pp. 387–405. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54494-5_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Belder, T., ter Beek, M.H., de Vink, E.P.: Coherent branching feature bisimulation. In: Atlee, J.M., Gnesi, S. (eds.) Proceedings 6th Workshop on Formal Methods and Analysis in SPL Engineering, FMSPLE@ETAPS 2015, London, UK, 11 April 2015. EPTCS, vol. 182, pp. 14–30 (2015). https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.182.2

  12. Ben-David, S., Hrubeš, P., Moran, S., Shpilka, A., Yehudayoff, A.: Learnability can be undecidable. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1(1), 44–48 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-018-0002-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Beohar, H., Mousavi, M.R.: Input-output conformance testing based on featured transition systems. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2014, pp. 1272–1278. ACM Press (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2554850.2554949

  14. Beohar, H., Mousavi, M.R.: Input-output conformance testing for software product lines. J. Log. Algebr. Meth. Program. 85(6), 1131–1153 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlamp.2016.09.007

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Beohar, H., Mousavi, M.: Spinal test suites for software product lines. ArXiv e-prints (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Beohar, H., Varshosaz, M., Mousavi, M.R.: Basic behavioral models for software product lines: expressiveness and testing pre-orders. Sci. Comput. Program., July 2015. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167642315001288

  17. Bertolino, A., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Lami, G.: Product line use cases: scenario-based specification and testing of requirements. In: Käköla, T., Duenas, J.C. (eds.) Software Product Lines, pp. 425–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-33253-4_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Bertolino, A., Gnesi, S.: PLUTO: a test methodology for product families. In: van der Linden, F.J. (ed.) PFE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3014, pp. 181–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24667-1_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Briand, L., Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Bianculli, D.: Testing the untestable: model testing of complex software-intensive systems. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion, ICSE 2016, pp. 789–792. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2889160.2889212

  20. Cartaxo, E.G., Machado, P.D.L., Neto, F.G.O.: On the use of a similarity function for test case selection in the context of model-based testing. Softw. Test. Verification Reliab. 21(2), 75–100 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chrszon, P., Dubslaff, C., Klüppelholz, S., Baier, C.: ProFeat: feature-oriented engineering for family-based probabilistic model checking. Formal Asp. Comput. 30(1), 45–75 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-017-0432-4

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Cichos, H., Oster, S., Lochau, M., Schürr, A.: Model-based coverage-driven test suite generation for software product lines. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 425–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24485-8_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Classen, A., Cordy, M., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.Y.: Model checking software product lines with SNIP. STTT 14(5), 589–612 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Classen, A., Cordy, M., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.: Formal semantics, modular specification, and symbolic verification of product-line behaviour. Sci. Comput. Program. 80, 416–439 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2013.09.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Classen, A., Cordy, M., Schobbens, P., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Raskin, J.: Featured transition systems: foundations for verifying variability-intensive systems and their application to LTL model checking. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 39(8), 1069–1089 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2012.86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Classen, A., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.Y., Legay, A.: Symbolic model checking of software product lines. In: ICSE 2011, pp. 321–330. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Classen, A., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.Y., Legay, A., Raskin, J.F.: Model checking lots of systems: efficient verification of temporal properties in software product lines. In: ICSE 2010, pp. 335–344. ACM (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cohen, M., Dwyer, M., Shi, J.: Constructing interaction test suites for highly-configurable systems in the presence of constraints: a greedy approach. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 34(5), 633–650 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen, M.B., Dwyer, M.B., Shi, J.: Coverage and adequacy in software product line testing. In: Proceedings of the ISSTA 2006 Workshop on Role of Software Architecture for Testing and Analysis - ROSATEA 2006, pp. 53–63 (2006). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1147249.1147257

  30. Cordy, M., Classen, A., Perrouin, G., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.Y., Legay, A.: Simulation-based abstractions for software product-line model checking. In: ICSE 2012, pp. 672–682. IEEE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cordy, M., Classen, A., Perrouin, G., Schobbens, P., Heymans, P., Legay, A.: Simulation-based abstractions for software product-line model checking. In: 34th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2012, 2–9 June 2012, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 672–682. IEEE Computer Society (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cordy, M., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Schobbens, P., Dawagne, B., Leucker, M.: Counterexample guided abstraction refinement of product-line behavioural models. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, (FSE-22), Hong Kong, China, 16–22 November 2014, pp. 190–201. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cordy, M., Legay, A., Lazreg, S., Collet, P.: Towards sampling and simulation-based analysis of featured weighted automata. In: FORMALISE@ICSE 2019, pp. 61–64 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cordy, M., Schobbens, P., Heymans, P., Legay, A.: Behavioural modelling and verification of real-time software product lines. In: 16th International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 2012, Salvador, Brazil, 2–7 September 2012, vol. 1, pp. 66–75. ACM (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cordy, M., Schobbens, P.Y., Heymans, P., Legay, A.: Towards an incremental automata-based approach for software product-line model checking. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference, vol. 2, pp. 74–81. ACM (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cordy, M., Schobbens, P.Y., Heymans, P., Legay, A.: ProVeLines: a product-line of verifiers for software product lines. In: SPLC 2013, pp. 141–146. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Czarnecki, K., She, S., Wasowski, A.: Sample spaces and feature models: There and back again. In: Proceedings of the 2008 12th International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 2008, pp. 22–31. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/SPLC.2008.49

  38. Czarnecki, K., Wasowski, A.: Feature diagrams and logics: there and back again. In: SPLC 2007, pp. 23–34. IEEE Computer Society (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Devroey, X., et al.: Statistical prioritization for software product line testing: an experience report. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(1), 153–171 (2017). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10270-015-0479-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Devroey, X., Perrouin, G., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.Y., Heymans, P.: Search-based similarity-driven behavioural SPL Testing. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems - VaMoS 2016, pp. 89–96. ACM Press, Salvador, Brazil, January 2016

    Google Scholar 

  41. Devroey, X., Perrouin, G., Papadakis, M., Legay, A., Schobbens, P., Heymans, P.: Featured model-based mutation analysis. In: Dillon, L.K., Visser, W., Williams, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2016, Austin, TX, USA, 14–22 May 2016, pp. 655–666. ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884821

  42. Devroey, X., Perrouin, G., Schobbens, P.Y., Heymans, P.: Poster: VIBeS, transition system mutation made easy. In: 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2015, vol. 2, pp. 817–818. IEEE, Florence, Italy, May 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2015.263, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7203084/

  43. Dimovski, A.S., Legay, A., Wasowski, A.: Variability abstraction and refinement for game-based lifted model checking of full CTL. In: Hähnle, R., van der Aalst, W. (eds.) FASE 2019. LNCS, vol. 11424, pp. 192–209. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Dimovski, A.S., Wąsowski, A.: From transition systems to variability models and from lifted model checking back to UPPAAL. In: Aceto, L., Bacci, G., Bacci, G., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Legay, A., Mardare, R. (eds.) Models, Algorithms, Logics and Tools. LNCS, vol. 10460, pp. 249–268. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63121-9_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Dimovski, A.S., Wąsowski, A.: Variability-specific abstraction refinement for family-based model checking. In: Huisman, M., Rubin, J. (eds.) FASE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10202, pp. 406–423. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54494-5_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Droste, S., Jansen, T., Wegener, I.: On the analysis of the (1+1) evolutionary algorithm. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 276(1), 51–81 (2002). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397501001827

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Dubslaff, C., Klüppelholz, S., Baier, C.: Probabilistic model checking for energy analysis in software product lines. In: 13th International Conference on Modularity, MODULARITY 2014, Lugano, Switzerland, 22–26 April 2014, pp. 169–180. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ensan, F., Bagheri, E., Gašević, D.: Evolutionary search-based test generation for software product line feature models. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 613–628. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31095-9_40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: A behavioural model for product families. In: Proceedings of the 6th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, 2007, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 3–7 September 2007, pp. 521–524 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Garvin, B.J., Cohen, M.B., Dwyer, M.B.: Evaluating improvements to a meta-heuristic search for constrained interaction testing. Empir. Softw. Eng. 16(1), 61–102 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Goodfellow, I., Shlens, J., Szegedy, C.: Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6572

  52. Gruler, A., Leucker, M., Scheidemann, K.: Modeling and model checking software product lines. In: Barthe, G., de Boer, F.S. (eds.) FMOODS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5051, pp. 113–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68863-1_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Guo, J., et al.: SMTIBEA: a hybrid multi-objective optimization algorithm for configuring large constrained software product lines. Softw. Syst. Model., July 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0610-0

  54. Halin, A., Nuttinck, A., Acher, M., Devroey, X., Perrouin, G., Baudry, B.: Test them all, is it worth it? assessing configuration sampling on the JHipster web development stack. Empir. Softw. Eng. 24(2), 674–717 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-018-9635-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hemmati, H., Arcuri, A., Briand, L.: Achieving scalable model-based testing through test case diversity. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 22(1), 1–42 (2013). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2430536.2430540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Henard, C., Papadakis, M., Harman, M., Le Traon, Y.: Combining multi-objective search and constraint solving for configuring large software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 1, ICSE 2015, pp. 517–528. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA (2015). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2818754.2818819

  57. Henard, C., Papadakis, M., Perrouin, G., Klein, J., Heymans, P., Le Traon, Y.: Bypassing the combinatorial explosion: using similarity to generate and prioritize T-wise test configurations for software product lines. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 40(7), 650–670 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Jaccard, P.: Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et des Jura. Bulletin del la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 37, 547–579 (1901)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Johansen, M.F., Haugen, Ø., Fleurey, F.: An algorithm for generating t-wise covering arrays from large feature models. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference on - SPLC 2012, vol. 1, p. 46. ACM Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, S.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Carnegie Mellon University (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kästner, C., et al.: Toward variability-aware testing. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development, FOSD 2012, pp. 1–8. ACM Press (2012). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2377816.2377817

  62. Kim, C.H.P., Bodden, E., Batory, D., Khurshid, S.: Reducing configurations to monitor in a software product line. In: Barringer, H., et al. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 285–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16612-9_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  63. Knapp, A., Roggenbach, M., Schlingloff, B.H.: On the use of test cases in model-based software product line development. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference, vol. 1, SPLC 2014, pp. 247–251. ACM Press (2014). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2648511.2648539

  64. Kuhn, D., Wallace, D., Gallo, A.: Software fault interactions and implications for software testing. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(6), 418–421 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lazreg, S., Cordy, M., Collet, P., Heymans, P., Mosser, S.: Multifaceted automated analyses for variability-intensive embedded systems. In: ICSE 2019, pp. 854–865 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Legay, A., Delahaye, B., Bensalem, S.: Statistical model checking: an overview. In: Barringer, H., et al. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 122–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16612-9_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  67. Li, X., Wong, W.E., Gao, R., Hu, L., Hosono, S.: Genetic algorithm-based test generation for software product line with the integration of fault localization techniques. Empir. Softw. Eng., pp. 1–51 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9494-9

  68. Lochau, M., Lity, S., Lachmann, R., Schaefer, I., Goltz, U.: Delta-oriented model-based integration testing of large-scale systems. J. Syst. Softw. 91, 63–84 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.11.1096. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0164121213002781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lochau, M., Oster, S., Goltz, U., Schürr, A.: Model-based pairwise testing for feature interaction coverage in software product line engineering. Software Qual. J. 20(3–4), 567–604 (2012). http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11219-011-9165-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Lochau, M., Schaefer, I., Kamischke, J., Lity, S.: Incremental model-based testing of delta-oriented software product lines. In: Brucker, A.D., Julliand, J. (eds.) TAP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7305, pp. 67–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30473-6_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  71. Lopez-Herrejon, R.E., Fischer, S., Ramler, R., Egyed, A.: A first systematic mapping study on combinatorial interaction testing for software product lines. In: 2015 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW), pp. 1–10. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Luthmann, L., Stephan, A., Bürdek, J., Lochau, M.: Modeling and testing product lines with unbounded parametric real-time constraints. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A, SPLC 2017, pp. 104–113. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2017). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3106195.3106204

  73. Mathur, A.P.: Foundations of Software Testing. Pearson Education, India (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  74. McGregor, J.D.: Testing a software product line. In: Borba, P., Cavalcanti, A., Sampaio, A., Woodcook, J. (eds.) PSSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 6153, pp. 104–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14335-9_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  75. Mendonca, M., Branco, M., Cowan, D.: S.P.L.O.T.: Software product lines online tools. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 2009, pp. 761–762. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2009). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1639950.1640002

  76. Nebut, C., Pickin, S., Le Traon, Y., Jézéquel, J.M.: Automated requirements-based generation of test cases for product families. In: 2003 Proceedings of 18th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 263–266. IEEE (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Nguyen, H.V., Kästner, C., Nguyen, T.N.: Exploring variability-aware execution for testing plugin-based web applications. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE 2014, pp. 907–918. ACM Press (2014). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2568225.2568300

  78. Olaechea, R., Atlee, J., Legay, A., Fahrenberg, U.: Trace checking for dynamic software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, SEAMS 2018, pp. 69–75. ACM (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  79. Olaechea, R., Fahrenberg, U., Atlee, J.M., Legay, A.: Long-term average cost in featured transition systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Systems and Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 2016, Beijing, China, 16–23 September 2016, pp. 109–118. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  80. Olaechea, R., Fahrenberg, U., Atlee, J.M., Legay, A.: Long-term average cost in featured transition systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Systems and Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 2016, pp. 109–118. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2016). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2934466.2934473

  81. Oster, S., Markert, F., Ritter, P.: Automated incremental pairwise testing of software product lines. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 196–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15579-6_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  82. Perrouin, G., Acher, M., Davril, J., Legay, A., Heymans, P.: A complexity tale: web configurators. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Variability and Complexity in Software Design, VACE@ICSE 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, 14–22 May 2016, pp. 28–31. ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2897045.2897051

  83. Perrouin, G., Oster, S., Sen, S., Klein, J., Baudry, B., le Traon, Y.: Pairwise testing for software product lines: comparison of two approaches. Softw. Qual. J. 20(3–4), 605–643 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9160-9

    Google Scholar 

  84. Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering - Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28901-1

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  85. von Rhein, A., Apel, S., Kästner, C., Thüm, T., Schaefer, I.: The PLA model: on the combination of product-line analyses. In: VaMoS, p. 14 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  86. Rodrigues, G.N., et al.: Modeling and verification for probabilistic properties in software product lines. In: 16th IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering, HASE 2015, Daytona Beach, FL, USA, 8–10 January 2015, pp. 173–180 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  87. Sayyad, A.S., Menzies, T., Ammar, H.: On the value of user preferences in search-based software engineering: a case study in software product lines. In: ICSE 2013, pp. 492–501 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  88. Schobbens, P.Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.C., Bontemps, Y.: Feature diagrams: a survey and a formal semantics. In: RE 2006, pp. 139–148 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ter Beek, M., Legay, A., Lluch Lafuente, A., Vandin, A.: A framework for quantitative modeling and analysis of highly (re)configurable systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., p. 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2018.2853726

  90. Tian, Y., Pei, K., Jana, S., Ray, B.: DeepTest: automated testing of deep-neural-network-driven autonomous cars. In: ICSE 2018, pp. 303–314. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  91. Tretmans, J.: Model based testing with labelled transition systems. In: Hierons, R.M., Bowen, J.P., Harman, M. (eds.) Formal Methods and Testing. LNCS, vol. 4949, pp. 1–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78917-8_1. http://www.springerlink.com/index/y390356226x154j0.pdf

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  92. Tretmans, J.: Model-based testing and some steps towards test-based modelling. In: Bernardo, M., Issarny, V. (eds.) SFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6659, pp. 297–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21455-4_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  93. Utting, M., Legeard, B.: Practical Model-Based Testing: A Tools Approach. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  94. Uzuncaova, E., Khurshid, S., Batory, D.: Incremental test generation for software product lines. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36(3), 309–322 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Vanhecke, J., Devroey, X., Perrouin, G.: AbsCon : a test concretizer for model-based testing. In: 2019 IEEE Twelfth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW), A-MOST 2019. IEEE, Xi’an, China (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  96. Vojnar, T., Zhang, L. (eds.): TACAS 2019. LNCS, vol. 11428. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17465-1

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SnT, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Maxime Cordy

  2. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Xavier Devroey

  3. UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Axel Legay

  4. PReCISE/NaDI, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium

    Gilles Perrouin, Patrick Heymans & Pierre-Yves Schobbens

  5. INTEC Software Engineering, St. Vith, Belgium

    Andreas Classen

  6. ULB, Brussels, Belgium

    Jean-François Raskin

Authors
  1. Maxime Cordy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xavier Devroey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Axel Legay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gilles Perrouin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Classen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Patrick Heymans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pierre-Yves Schobbens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jean-François Raskin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gilles Perrouin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pisa, Italy

    Maurice H. ter Beek

  2. Università degli Studi di Firenze, Florence, Italy

    Alessandro Fantechi

  3. Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Laura Semini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cordy, M. et al. (2019). A Decade of Featured Transition Systems. In: ter Beek, M., Fantechi, A., Semini, L. (eds) From Software Engineering to Formal Methods and Tools, and Back. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11865. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30985-5_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30985-5_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30984-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30985-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation