A Framework for Testing Model Composition Engines

  • Freddy Munoz
  • Benoit Baudry
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5634)


Model composition helps designers managing complexities by modeling different system views separately, and later compose them into an integrated model. In the past years, researchers have focused on the definition of model composition approaches (operators) and the tools supporting them (model composition engines). Testing model composition engines is hard. It requires the synthesis and analysis of complex data structures (models). In this context, synthesis means to assembly complex structures in a coherent way with respect to semantic constraints. In this paper we propose to automatically synthesize input data for model composition engines using a model decomposition operator. Through this operator we synthesize models in a coherent way, satisfying semantic constraints and taking into account the complex mechanics involved in the model composition. Furthermore, such operator enables a straightforward analysis of the composition result.


Model composition Model composition engines Software testing Data synthesis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    France, R., Rumpe, B.: Model-driven Development of Complex Software: A Research Roadmap. In: FOSE 2007: 2007 Future of Software Engineering, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 37–54 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lahire, P., Morin, B., Vanwormhoudt, G., Gaignard, A., Barais, O., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Introducing Variability into Aspect-Oriented Modeling Approaches. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 498–513. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    France, R., Fleurey, F., Reddy, R., Baudry, B., Ghosh, S.: Providing Support for Model Composition in Metamodels. In: edoc, pp. 253–265. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Zave, P.: Matching and Merging of Statecharts Specifications. In: ICSE 2007: Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 54–64 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fabro, M.D.D., Valduriez, P.: Semi-automatic model integration using matching transformations and weaving models. In: SAC 2007: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Applied computing, pp. 963–970 (2007) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fleurey, F., France, R., Baudry, B., Ghosh, S.: Kompose: A generic model composition tool (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, S.a., Baniassad, E.: Aspect-Oriented Analysis and Design. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reddy, Y.R., Ghosh, S., France, R.B., Straw, G., Bieman, J.M., McEachen, N., Song, E., Georg, G.: Directives for composing aspect-oriented design class models. In: Rashid, A., Aksit, M. (eds.) Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development I. LNCS, vol. 3880, pp. 75–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Whittle, J., Moreira, A., Araújo, J., Jayaraman, P., Elkhodary, A.M., Rabbi, R.: An Expressive Aspect Composition Language for UML State Diagrams. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 514–528. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muller, P.-A., Fleurey, F., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Weaving executability into object-oriented meta-languages. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 264–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herrmann, C., Krahn, H., Rumpe, B., Schindler, M., Völkel, S.: An Algebraic View on the Semantics of Model Composition. In: Model Driven Architecture- Foundations and Applications, pp. 99–113 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehrig, K., Küster, J., Taentzer, G.: Generating instance models from meta models. In: Software and Systems ModelingGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brottier, E., Fleurey, F., Steel, J., Baudry, B., Traon, Y.L.: Metamodel-based Test Generation for Model Transformations: an Algorithm and a Tool. In: ISSRE 2006: Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 85–94 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sen, S., Baudry, B., Mottu, J.-M.: On Combining Multi-formalism Knowledge to Select Models for Model Transformation Testing. In: ICST, pp. 328–337 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Daniel, J.: Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11, 256–290 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Phillip, A.B., Alon, Y.H., Rachel, A.P.: A vision for management of complex models. SIGMOD Rec. 29, 55–63 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fleurey, F., Baudry, B., Muller, P.A., Traon, Y.: Qualifying input test data for model transformations. In: Software and Systems Modeling (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Offutt, A.J.: A practical system for mutation testing: help for the common programmer. In: Proceedings of International Test Conference, 1994, pp. 824–830 (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Easterbrook, S.: An Algebraic Framework for Merging Incomplete and Inconsistent Views. In: RE 2005: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 306–318 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Easterbrook, S.: Analysis of inconsistency in graph-based viewpoints: a category-theoretical approach. In: Proceedings of 18th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2003, pp. 12–21 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Easterbrook, S.: View merging in the presence of incompleteness and inconsistency. Requir. Eng. 11, 174–193 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barais, O., Klein, J., Baudry, B., Jackson, A., Clarke, S.: Composing Multi-view Aspect Models. In: ICCBSS 2008. Seventh International Conference on Composition-Based Software Systems, 2008, pp. 43–52 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Küster, J.M.: Definition and Validation of Model Transformations. Software and Systems Modeling 5, 233–259 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lamari, M.: Towards an Automated Test Generation for the Verification of Model Transformations. In: Symposium on Applied Computing SAC 2007, Seoul, Korea (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Duddy, K., Gerber, A., Lawley, M., Raymond, K., Steel, J.: Model Transformation: A declarative, reusable patterns approach. In: EDOC 2003 (Entreprise Distributed Object Computing Conference), Brisbane, Australia, pp. 174–185 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin, Y., Zhang, J., Gray, J.: A Testing Framework for Model Transformations. In: Model-driven Software Development - Research and Practice in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mottu, J.-M., Baudry, B., Le Traon, Y.: Model transformation testing: oracle issue. In: MoDeVVa workshop colocated with ICST 2008, Lillehammer, Norway (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lopes, D., Hammoudi, S., De Souza, J., Bontempo, A.: Metamodel Matching: Experiments and Comparison. In: International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA 2006), Los Alamitos, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.a.C.: Model Comparison: A Foundation for Model Composition and Model Transformation Testing. In: Workshop GaMMa 2006, Shangaï, China (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lin, Y., Zhang, J., Gray, J.: Model Comparison: A Key Challenge for Transformation Testing and Version Control in Model Driven Software Development. In: OOPSLA 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xing, Z., Stroulia, E.: UMLDiff: an algorithm for object-oriented design differencing. In: ASE 2005: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM international Conference on Automated software engineering, New York, NY, USA, pp. 54–65 (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Andrews, A., France, R., Ghosh, S., Craig, G.: Test adequacy criteria for UML design models. In: Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, vol. 13, pp. 95–127 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dinh-Trong, T.T., Ghosh, S., France, R.B.: A Systematic Approach to Generate Inputs to Test UML Design Models. In: ISSRE 2006: Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 95–104 (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dinh-Trong, T.T., Ghosh, S., France, R.B., Andrews, A.A.: A Systematic Approach to Testing UML Design Models. In: 4th International Workshop on Critical Systems Development Using Modeling Languages (CSDUML), Fredrikstad, Norway (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Freddy Munoz
    • 1
  • Benoit Baudry
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA, Centre Rennes - Bretagne Atlantique Campus de BeaulieuRennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations