research-article

<italic>We’re Not Gonna Break It!</italic> Consistency-Preserving Operators for Efficient Product Line Configuration

Authors:

Jose-Miguel Horcas,

Daniel Strüber,

Alexandru Burdusel,

Jabier Martinez,

Steffen ZschalerAuthors Info & Claims

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Volume 49, Issue 3

Pages 1102 - 1117

https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2022.3171404

Published: 01 March 2023 Publication History

Abstract

When configuring a software product line, finding a good trade-off between multiple orthogonal quality concerns is a challenging multi-objective optimisation problem. State-of-the-art solutions based on search-based techniques create invalid configurations in intermediate steps, requiring additional repair actions that reduce the efficiency of the search. In this work, we introduce <italic>consistency-preserving configuration operators</italic> (CPCOs)—genetic operators that maintain valid configurations throughout the entire search. CPCOs bundle coherent sets of changes: the activation or deactivation of a particular feature together with other (de)activations that are needed to preserve validity. In our evaluation, our instantiation of the IBEA algorithm with CPCOs outperforms two state-of-the-art tools for optimal product line configuration in terms of both speed and solution quality. The improvements are especially pronounced in large product lines with thousands of features.

References

[1]

S. Apel, D. S. Batory, C. Kästner, and G. Saake, Feature-Oriented Software Product Lines - Concepts and Implementation, Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2013.

[2]

K. C. Kang, S. G. Cohen, J. A. Hess, W. E. Novak, and A. S. Peterson, “Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study,” Softw. Eng. Inst., Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, 1990.

[3]

D. Benavides, P. Trinidad, and A. Ruiz-Cortés, “Automated reasoning on feature models,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Adv. Inf. Syst. Eng., 2005, pp. 491–503.

[4]

L. Ochoa, O. G. Rojas, J. A. Pereira, H. Castro, and G. Saake, “A systematic literature review on the semi-automatic configuration of extended product lines,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 144, pp. 511–532, 2018.

Digital Library

[5]

J. A. Pereira, M. Acher, H. Martin, J.-M. Jézéquel, G. Botterweck, and A. Ventresque, “Learning software configuration spaces: A systematic literature review,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 182, 2021, Art. no.

Digital Library

[6]

A. S. Sayyad, J. Ingram, T. Menzies, and H. Ammar, “Scalable product line configuration: A straw to break the camel's back,” in Proc. 28th IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. Automated Softw. Eng., 2013, pp. 465–474.

[7]

A. S. Sayyad, T. Menzies, and H. Ammar, “On the value of user preferences in search-based software engineering: A case study in software product lines,” in Proc. 35th Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., 2013, pp. 492–501.

[8]

G. G. Pascual, R. E. Lopez-Herrejon, M. Pinto, L. Fuentes, and A. Egyed, “Applying multiobjective evolutionary algorithms to dynamic software product lines for reconfiguring mobile applications,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 103, pp. 392–411, 2015.

Digital Library

[9]

N. Siegmund, S. Sobernig, and S. Apel, “Attributed variability models: Outside the comfort zone,” in Proc. 11th Joint Meeting Foundations Softw. Eng., 2017, pp. 268–278.

[10]

J. Guo and K. Shi, “To preserve or not to preserve invalid solutions in search-based software engineering: A case study in software product lines,” in Proc. 40th Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., 2018, pp. 1027–1038.

[11]

C. Henard, M. Papadakis, M. Harman, and Y. L. Traon, “Combining multi-objective search and constraint solving for configuring large software product lines,” in Proc. IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., 2015, pp. 517–528.

[12]

D. Strüber, J. Rubin, T. Arendt, M. Chechik, G. Taentzer, and J. Plöger, “Variability-based model transformation: Formal foundation and application,” Formal Aspects Comput., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 133–162, 2018.

Digital Library

[13]

J.-M. Horcas, D. Strüber, A. Burdusel, J. Martinez, and S. Zschaler, “Online appendix,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6457582

[14]

D. Strüberet al., “Henshin: A usability-focused framework for EMF model transformation development,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Graph Transformation, 2017, pp. 196–208.

[15]

E. Figueiredoet al., “Evolving software product lines with aspects,” in Proc. IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., 2008, pp. 261–270.

[16]

D. Benavides, S. Segura, and A. R. Cortés, “Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review,” Inf. Syst., vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 615–636, 2010.

Digital Library

[17]

T. Thüm, C. Kästner, F. Benduhn, J. Meinicke, G. Saake, and T. Leich, “FeatureIDE: An extensible framework for feature-oriented software development,” Sci. Comput. Program., vol. 79, pp. 70–85, 2014.

Digital Library

[18]

J. M. Horcas, “WeaFQAs: A software product line approach for customizing and weaving efficient functional quality attributes,” Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad de Malaga, Jul. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://hdl.handle.net/10630/17231

[19]

J. J. Durillo and A. J. Nebro, “jMetal: A Java framework for multi-objective optimization,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 760–771, 2011.

Digital Library

[20]

Y. Xiang, X. Yang, Y. Zhou, Z. Zheng, M. Li, and H. Huang, “Going deeper with optimal software products selection using many-objective optimization and satisfiability solvers,” Empir. Softw. Eng., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 591–626, 2020.

Digital Library

[21]

N. Siegmund, M. Rosenmüller, C. Kästner, P. G. Giarrusso, S. Apel, and S. S. Kolesnikov, “Scalable prediction of non-functional properties in software product lines: Footprint and memory consumption,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 491–507, 2013.

Digital Library

[22]

A. Knüppel, T. Thüm, S. Mennicke, J. Meinicke, and I. Schaefer, “Is there a mismatch between real-world feature models and product-line research?,” in Proc. 11th Joint Meeting Foundations Softw. Eng., 2017, pp. 291–302.

[23]

E. Zitzler and L. Thiele, “Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A comparative case study and the strength pareto approach,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Computation, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 257–271, Nov. 1999.

Digital Library

[24]

A. P. Guerreiro, C. M. Fonseca, and L. Paquete, “The hypervolume indicator: Problems and algorithms,” CoRR, vol. abs/2005.00515, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00515

[25]

A. Arcuri and L. C. Briand, “A hitchhiker's guide to statistical tests for assessing randomized algorithms in software engineering,” Softw. Test., Verif. Reliab., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 219–250, 2014.

Digital Library

[26]

A. Vargha and H. D. Delaney, “A critique and improvement of the CL common language effect size statistics of McGraw and Wong,” J. Educ. Behav. Statist., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 101–132, 2000.

[27]

A. Sülflow, N. Drechsler, and R. Drechsler, “Incorporating user preferences in many-objective optimization using relation ϵ-preferred,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Evol. Multi-Criterion Optim., 2007, pp. 715–726.

[28]

T. Bergeret al., “A survey of variability modeling in industrial practice,” in Proc. 7th Int. Workshop Variability Modelling Softw.-Intensive Syst., 2013, pp. 1–8.

[29]

S. Nadi, T. Berger, C. Kästner, and K. Czarnecki, “Where do configuration constraints stem from? An extraction approach and an empirical study,” IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 820–841, Aug. 2015.

Digital Library

[30]

K. Czarnecki, S. Helsen, and U. W. Eisenecker, “Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization,” Softw. Process: Improvement Pract., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 7–29, 2005.

[31]

D. Munoz, J. Oh, M. Pinto, L. Fuentes, and D. S. Batory, “Uniform random sampling product configurations of feature models that have numerical features,” in Proc. 23rd Int. Syst. Softw. Product Line Conf., 2019, pp. 289–301.

[32]

J. García-Galán, P. Trinidad, O. F. Rana, and A. Ruiz-Cortés, “Automated configuration support for infrastructure migration to the cloud,” Future Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 55, pp. 200–212, 2016.

Digital Library

[33]

Y. Xiang, Y. Zhou, Z. Zheng, and M. Li, “Configuring software product lines by combining many-objective optimization and SAT solvers,” ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1–46, 2018.

Digital Library

[34]

R. Mazo, C. Dumitrescu, C. Salinesi, and D. Diaz, “Recommendation heuristics for improving product line configuration processes,” in Recommendation Systems in Software Engineering, Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2014, pp. 511–537.

[35]

J. A. Pereira, J. Martinez, H. K. Gurudu, S. Krieter, and G. Saake, “Visual guidance for product line configuration using recommendations and non-functional properties,” in Proc. 33rd Annu. ACM Symp. Appl. Comput., 2018, pp. 2058–2065.

[36]

J. Martinez, T. Ziadi, R. Mazo, T. F. Bissyandé, J. Klein, and Y. L. Traon, “Feature relations graphs: A visualisation paradigm for feature constraints in software product lines,” in Proc. 2nd IEEE Work. Conf. Softw. Vis., 2014, pp. 50–59.

[37]

Y. Xiong, A. Hubaux, S. She, and K. Czarnecki, “Generating range fixes for software configuration,” in Proc. IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., 2012, pp. 58–68.

[38]

D. Benavides, S. Segura, P. Trinidad, and A. R. Cortés, “FAMA: Tooling a framework for the automated analysis of feature models,” in Proc. 1st Int. Workshop Variability Modelling Softw.-Intensive Syst., 2007, pp. 129–134.

[39]

S. Krieter, T. Thüm, S. Schulze, R. Schröter, and G. Saake, “Propagating configuration decisions with modal implication graphs,” in Proc. IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., 2018, pp. 898–909.

[40]

N. Siegmund, M. Rosenmüller, M. Kuhlemann, C. Kästner, S. Apel, and G. Saake, “SPL conqueror: Toward optimization of non-functional properties in software product lines,” Softw. Qual. J., vol. 20, no. 3–4, pp. 487–517, 2012.

Digital Library

[41]

J. A. Pereira, “Search-based product configuration in software product lines,” Master thesis, Federal Univ. Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil, April 2014. [Online]. Available: https://repositorio.ufmg.br/handle/1843/ESBF-9Q4FQ9

[42]

R. Olaechea, S. Stewart, K. Czarnecki, and D. Rayside, “Modelling and multi-objective optimization of quality attributes in variability-rich software,” in Proc. 4th Int. Workshop Nonfunctional Syst. Properties Domain Specific Model. Lang., 2012, pp. 2:1–6.

[43]

V. Nair, T. Menzies, N. Siegmund, and S. Apel, “Faster discovery of faster system configurations with spectral learning,” Automated Softw. Eng., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 247–277, 2018.

Digital Library

[44]

J. Oh, D. Batory, M. Myers, and N. Siegmund, “Finding near-optimal configurations in product lines by random sampling,” in Proc. 11th Joint Meeting Foundations Softw. Eng., 2017, pp. 61–71.

[45]

D. Batory, J. Oh, R. Heradio, and D. Benavides, Product Optimization in Stepwise Design, Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2021, pp. 63–81.

[46]

D. S. Batory, “Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Softw. Product Lines, 2005, pp. 7–20.

[47]

M. Lienhardt, F. Damiani, E. B. Johnsen, and J. Mauro, “Lazy product discovery in huge configuration spaces,” in Proc. IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., 2020, pp. 1509–1521.

[48]

R. Schröter, S. Krieter, T. Thüm, F. Benduhn, and G. Saake, “Feature-model interfaces: The highway to compositional analyses of highly-configurable systems,” in Proc. IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., 2016, pp. 667–678.

[49]

K. Czarnecki, S. Helsen, and U. W. Eisenecker, “Staged configuration through specialization and multilevel configuration of feature models,” Softw. Process: Improvement Pract., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 143–169, 2005.

[50]

E. K. Abbasi, A. Hubaux, and P. Heymans, “A toolset for feature-based configuration workflows,” in Proc. 15th Int. Softw. Product Line Conf., 2011, pp. 65–69.

[51]

K. Peng, C. Kaltenecker, N. Siegmund, S. Apel, and T. Menzies, “VEER: Disagreement-free multi-objective configuration,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.02716

[52]

Á. Hegedüs, Á. Horváth, and D. Varró, “A model-driven framework for guided design space exploration,” Automated Softw. Engi., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 399–436, 2015.

Digital Library

[53]

M. Fleck, J. Troya, and M. Wimmer, “Search-based model transformations with momot,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Theory Pract. Model Transformations, 2016, pp. 79–87.

[54]

A. Burdusel, S. Zschaler, and D. Strüber, “MDEoptimiser: A search based model engineering tool,” in Proc. 21st ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Model Driven Eng. Lang. Syst.: Companion Proc., 2018, pp. 12–16.

[55]

J. Kosiol, D. Strüber, G. Taentzer, and S. Zschaler, “Sustaining and improving graduated graph consistency: A static analysis of graph transformations,” Sci. Comput. Program., vol. 214, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2021.102729

[56]

T. Kehrer, G. Taentzer, M. Rindt, and U. Kelter, “Automatically deriving the specification of model editing operations from meta-models,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Theory Pract. Model Transformations, 2016, pp. 173–188.

[57]

A. Burdusel, S. Zschaler, and S. John, “Automatic generation of atomic consistency preserving search operators for search-based model engineering,” in Proc. ACM/IEEE 22nd Int. Conf. Model Driven Eng. Lang. Syst., 2019, pp. 106–116.

[58]

A. Burdusel and S. Zschaler, “Towards automatic generation of evolution rules for model-driven optimisation,” in Proc. Federation Int. Conf. Softw. Technol.: Appl. Foundations Workshops, 2017, pp. 60–75.

[59]

D. Strüberet al., “Facing the truth: Benchmarking the techniques for the evolution of variant-rich systems,” in Proc. 23rd Int. Syst. Softw. Product Line Conf., 2019, pp. 177–188.

[60]

L. Lambers, D. Strüber, G. Taentzer, K. Born, and J. Huebert, “Multi-granular conflict and dependency analysis in software engineering based on graph transformation,” in Proc. IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., 2018, pp. 716–727.

[61]

T. Thüm, S. Apel, C. Kästner, I. Schaefer, and G. Saake, “A classification and survey of analysis strategies for software product lines,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1–45, 2014.

Digital Library

Cited By

Taentzer GKosiol JLambers L(2024)On the Application of Model-Driven Optimization to Business ProcessesApplication and Theory of Petri Nets and Concurrency10.1007/978-3-031-61433-0_2(24-35)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-61433-0_2
Zhou YHu XXu SJia YLiu YWang JXu GWang WLiu SBaker T(2023)Multi-Misconfiguration Diagnosis via Identifying Correlated Configuration ParametersIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2023.330875549:10(4624-4638)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TSE.2023.3308755
John SKosiol JLambers LTaentzer G(2023)A graph-based framework for model-driven optimization facilitating impact analysis of mutation operator propertiesSoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-022-01078-x22:4(1281-1318)Online publication date: 17-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10270-022-01078-x
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Improving product configuration in software product line engineering
ACSC '13: Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Australasian Computer Science Conference - Volume 135

Software Product Line Engineering (SPLE) is a emerging software reuse paradigm. SPLE focuses on systematic software reuse from requirement engineering to product derivation throughout the software development life-cycle. Feature model is one of the most ...
Product Line Configuration Meets Process Mining
Abstract
Product line engineering is a new production paradigm that provides organizations a competitive edge by improving productivity and decreasing costs. The purpose with this new production paradigm is no longer to develop a single product but to ...
We're not gonna break it!: consistency-preserving operators for efficient product line configuration
SPLC '22: Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A

When configuring a software product line, finding a good tradeoff between multiple orthogonal quality concerns is a challenging multi-objective optimisation problem. State-of-the-art solutions are based on evolutionary search. They encode configurations ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering Volume 49, Issue 3

March 2023

450 pages

ISSN:0098-5589

Issue’s Table of Contents

0098-5589 © 2022 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

Publisher

IEEE Press

Publication History

Published: 01 March 2023

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 28 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Taentzer GKosiol JLambers L(2024)On the Application of Model-Driven Optimization to Business ProcessesApplication and Theory of Petri Nets and Concurrency10.1007/978-3-031-61433-0_2(24-35)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-61433-0_2
Zhou YHu XXu SJia YLiu YWang JXu GWang WLiu SBaker T(2023)Multi-Misconfiguration Diagnosis via Identifying Correlated Configuration ParametersIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2023.330875549:10(4624-4638)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TSE.2023.3308755
John SKosiol JLambers LTaentzer G(2023)A graph-based framework for model-driven optimization facilitating impact analysis of mutation operator propertiesSoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-022-01078-x22:4(1281-1318)Online publication date: 17-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10270-022-01078-x
Kosiol JStrüber DTaentzer GZschaler S(2023)Finding the Right Way to Rome: Effect-Oriented Graph TransformationGraph Transformation10.1007/978-3-031-36709-0_3(43-63)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-36709-0_3
Thölke HKosiol JKühn TSousa V(2022)A multiplicity-preserving crossover operator on graphsProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings10.1145/3550356.3561587(588-597)Online publication date: 23-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3550356.3561587
Martinez JStrüber DHorcas JBurdusel AZschaler SFelfernig AFuentes L(2022)AcapulcoProceedings of the 26th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume B10.1145/3503229.3547067(50-53)Online publication date: 12-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3503229.3547067
de Lara JGuerra E(undefined)Adaptive modelling languages: Abstract syntax and model migrationACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/3702975
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3702975

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents