Abstract
An effective way to model message exchange in complex settings is to use UML sequence diagrams in combination with state machine diagrams. A natural question that arises in this context is whether these two views are consistent, i.e., whether a desired or forbidden scenario modeled in the sequence diagram can be or cannot be executed by the state machines.In case of an inconsistency, a concrete communication trace of the state machines can give valuable information for debugging purposes on the model level.This trace either hints to a message in the sequence diagram where the communication between the state machines fails, or describes a concrete forbidden communication trace between the state machines.To detect and explain such inconsistencies, we propose a novel SAT-based formalization which can be solved automatically by an off-the-shelf SAT solver. To this end, we present the formal and technical foundations needed for the SAT-encoding, and an implementation inside the Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF). We evaluate the effectiveness of our approach using grammar-based fuzzing.
This work was partially funded by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) under grant ICT10-018 and by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under grants P25518-N23, S11408-N23, and S11409-N23.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bernardi, S., Donatelli, S., Merseguer, J.: From UML sequence diagrams and statecharts to analysable Petri net models. In: 3rd International Workshop on Software and Performance, pp. 35–45. ACM (2002)
Bézivin, J.: On the unification power of models. Software & Systems Modeling 4(2), 171–188 (2005)
Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.): Handbook of Satisfiability. FAIA, vol. 185. IOS Press (2009)
Brosch, P., Egly, U., Gabmeyer, S., Kappel, G., Seidl, M., Tompits, H., Widl, M., Wimmer, M.: Towards semantics-aware merge support in optimistic model versioning. In: Kienzle, J. (ed.) MODELS 2011 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 7167, pp. 246–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Brosch, P., Egly, U., Gabmeyer, S., Kappel, G., Seidl, M., Tompits, H., Widl, M., Wimmer, M.: Towards Scenario-Based Testing of UML Diagrams. In: Brucker, A.D., Julliand, J. (eds.) TAP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7305, pp. 149–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Brosch, P., Kappel, G., Langer, P., Seidl, M., Wieland, K., Wimmer, M.: An introduction to model versioning. In: Bernardo, M., Cortellessa, V., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) SFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7320, pp. 336–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Egyed, A.: Instant consistency checking for the UML. In: 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 381–390. ACM (2006)
Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S.: Testing the consistency of dynamic UML diagrams. In: 6th International Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT) (2002)
Feng, T.H., Vangheluwe, H.: Case study: Consistency problems in a UML model of a chat room. In: Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development, p. 18 (2003)
France, R., Rumpe, B.: Model-driven development of complex software: A research roadmap. In: Future of Software Engineering (FOSE), pp. 37–54. IEEE Computer Society (2007)
Gabmeyer, S., Kaufmann, P., Seidl, M.: A classification of model checking-based verification approaches for software models. In: STAF Workshop on Verification of Model Transformations (VOLT), pp. 1–7 (2013)
Graaf, B., van Deursen, A.: Model-driven consistency checking of behavioural specifications. In: 4th International Workshop on Model-Based Methodologies for Pervasive and Embedded Software (MOMPES), pp. 115–126 (2007)
Inverardi, P., Muccini, H., Pelliccione, P.: Automated check of architectural models consistency using SPIN. In: 16th Annual International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 346–349. IEEE Computer Society (2001)
Kaufmann, P., Kronegger, M., Pfandler, A., Seidl, M., Widl, M.: Global state checker: Towards SAT-based reachability analysis of communicating state machines. In: 10th Workshop on Model-Driven Engineering, Verification, and Validation (MoDeVVa). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1069, pp. 31–40 (2013)
Knapp, A., Wuttke, J.: Model checking of UML 2.0 interactions. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 42–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Lam, V.S.W., Padget, J.: Consistency Checking of Sequence Diagrams and Statechart Diagrams Using the π-Calculus. In: Romijn, J.M.T., Smith, G.P., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 347–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Le Berre, D., Parrain, A.: The Sat4j Library, Release 2.2, System Description. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 7, 59–64 (2010)
Lucas, F.J., Molina, F., Toval, A.: A systematic review of UML model consistency management. Information and Software Technology 51(12), 1631–1645 (2009)
Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley (1994)
Pelliccione, P., Inverardi, P., Muccini, H.: CHARMY: A Framework for Designing and Verifying Architectural Specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(3), 325–346 (2008)
Rintanen, J.: Planning and SAT. In: Handbook of Satisfiability. FAIA, vol. 185, pp. 483–504. IOS Press (2009)
Schäfer, T., Knapp, A., Merz, S.: Model Checking UML State Machines and Collaborations. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 55(3), 357–369 (2001)
Selic, B.: What will it take? A view on adoption of model-based methods in practice. Software & Systems Modeling 11(4), 513–526 (2012)
Sinz, C.: Towards an Optimal CNF Encoding of Boolean Cardinality Constraints. In: van Beek, P. (ed.) CP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3709, pp. 827–831. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Tseitin, G.S.: On the complexity of derivations in the propositional calculus. Studies in Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II, 115–125 (1968)
Usman, M., Nadeem, A., Kim, T., Cho, E.: A survey of consistency checking techniques for UML models. In: Advanced Software Engineering and Its Applications (ASEA), pp. 57–62. IEEE Computer Society (2008)
Van Der Straeten, R., Mens, T., Simmonds, J., Jonckers, V.: Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Whittle, J., Schumann, J.: Generating statechart designs from scenarios. In: 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 314–323. ACM (2000)
Widl, M.: Test Case Generation by Grammar-Based Fuzzing for Model-Driven Engineering. In: Biere, A., Nahir, A., Vos, T. (eds.) HVC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7857, pp. 278–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Widl, M., Biere, A., Brosch, P., Egly, U., Heule, M., Kappel, G., Seidl, M., Tompits, H.: Guided Merging of Sequence Diagrams. In: Czarnecki, K., Hedin, G. (eds.) SLE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7745, pp. 164–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kaufmann, P., Kronegger, M., Pfandler, A., Seidl, M., Widl, M. (2014). A SAT-Based Debugging Tool for State Machines and Sequence Diagrams. In: Combemale, B., Pearce, D.J., Barais, O., Vinju, J.J. (eds) Software Language Engineering. SLE 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8706. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11245-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11245-9_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11244-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11245-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)