Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Effective Detection of Model Changes
Similar to Effective Detection of Model Changes (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Effective Detection of Model Changes
- 1. Universidad de los Andes Departamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas y Computación Effective detection of model changes David Méndez Acuña Rubby Casallas Gutierrez SÉPTIMO CONGRESO COLOMBIANO DE COMPUTACIÓN 1
- 2. • Context • Problem • Related work • Our approach • Conclusions and future work 2 Agenda
- 3. Context Model-driven software development is an approach that proposes to use models as first-class entities for creating software products. 3
- 4. Problem Software evolution in the context of MDSD The problem of software evolution remains relevant in the context of model-driven software development A particular case of software evolution is the master/slave co-evolution [1]. 4 [[master]] [[slave]] [[master]] [[slave]] consistency consistency
- 5. 5 Problem Software evolution in the context of MDSD Grammars [[slave]] Metamodel [[master]] Transformations [[slave]] Models [[slave]]
- 6. 6 Problem Software evolution in the context of MDSD Grammars [[slave]] Transformations [[slave]] Models [[slave]]Metamodel [[master]]
- 7. 7 Migration process Changes propagation Impact analysis Changes detection
- 8. 8 Migration process Changes propagation Impact analysis Changes detection
- 9. Current approaches for model changes detection 9 Comparison-based approaches List of changes [2]
- 10. List of changes • Add class/property • Delete class/property • Retype property • Modify property multiplicity • Generalize property by type • Generalize property by multiplicity • Restrict property by type • Restrict property by multiplicity • Rename class/property • Add inheritance • Delete inheritance • Move property • Pull property • Push property • Extract superclass • Flatten hierarchy • Extract class • Inline class 11
- 11. Comparison-based approaches Compare two versions of the same metamodel and discover the differences 12 Metamodel [[master]] Metamodel [[master]] Changes model
- 12. Comparison-based approaches Compare two versions of the same metamodel and discover the differences 13 Metamodel [[master]] Metamodel [[master]] Changes model EMFCompare (syntactical) [3]
- 13. List of changes • Add class/property • Delete class/property • Retype property • Modify property multiplicity • Generalize property by type • Generalize property by multiplicity • Restrict property by type • Restrict property by multiplicity • Rename class/property • Add inheritance • Delete inheritance • Move property • Pull property • Push property • Extract superclass • Flatten hierarchy • Extract class • Inline class 14
- 14. Comparison-based approaches Compare two versions of the same metamodel and discover the differences 15 Metamodel [[master]] Metamodel [[master]] Changes model EMFCompare (syntactical) [3] Heuristics [4]
- 15. List of changes • Add class/property • Delete class/property • Retype property • Modify property multiplicity • Generalize property by type • Generalize property by multiplicity • Restrict property by type • Restrict property by multiplicity • Rename class/property • Add inheritance • Delete inheritance • Move property • Pull property • Push property • Extract superclass • Flatten hierarchy • Extract class • Inline class 16
- 16. 19 How to detect all the changes by using a comparison-based approach? It is possible to infer all the changes from the syntactical changes that EMFCompare supports?
- 17. 20 Our approach Objectives and overview Detect all the changes of the Wachsmuth list from the syntactical changes detected by EMFCompare Metamodel [[master]] Metamodel [[master]] Changes model (entire list) EMFCompare (syntactical) Changes taxonomy + Inference rules
- 18. 21 Changes taxonomy Change Syntactical Semantical constrained Semantical composite Atomic Composite
- 19. 22 Changes taxonomy Detection Change Syntactical Semantical constrained Semantical composite Atomic Composite Can be detected by syntactical analysis (EMFCompare)
- 21. 24 Change Syntactical Semantical constrained Semantical composite Atomic Composite A syntactical change that satisfies a structural constraint Changes taxonomy Detection A satisfies C A is semantical constrained
- 22. 25 Semantical constrained changes RETYPE PROPERTY [[syntactical]] The new type is super type of the old one satisfies GENERALIZE PROPERTY BY TYPE [[syntactical]]
- 23. 26 Change Syntactical Semantical constrained Semantical composite Atomic Composite A set of syntactical changes that satisfy some structural constraints Changes taxonomy Detection Set A satisfies C A is semantical composite
- 24. 27 Semantical composite changes MOVE PROPERTY [[syntactical]] A and B refer to different properties. A and B are moved from the same initial class to the same final class. The deleted class is the initial class of the moved properties satisfy INLINE CLASS [[syntactical]] MOVE PROPERTY [[syntactical]] DELETE CLASS [[syntactical]] A: B: C:
- 25. Changes taxonomy • Add class/property • Delete class/property • Retype property • Modify property multiplicity • Generalize property by type • Generalize property by multiplicity • Restrict property by type • Restrict property by multiplicity • Rename class/property • Add inheritance • Delete inheritance • Move property • Pull property • Push property • Extract superclass • Flatten hierarchy • Extract class • Inline class 28 Syntactical changes Constrained changes Composite changes
- 26. Acknowledgements 29 Anne Etien Université de Lille I Lille, France Germán Méndez ECOPETROL S.A Bogotá, Colombia Louis Rose University of York York, UK
- 27. • It is possible to infer semantics of changes from analysis of the syntactic differences between two versions of the same metamodel. • Some stronger validation is required. • We aim at presenting this tool to the eclipse community expecting to be accepted as an eclipse project. 30 Conclusions and future work
- 28. References [1] L. Rose, R. Paige, D. Kolovos, and F. Polack. An analysis of approaches to model migration. In Proceedings of the Models and Evolution Workshop, 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering, Languages and Systems, MoDSE-MCCM. ACM, October 2009. [2] G. Wachsmuth. Metamodel adaptation and model co-adaptation. In E. Ernst, editor, Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP’07), volume 4609 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 600–624. Springer-Verlag, July 2007. [3] EMFCompare. Eclipse Community. Accesed: 10 April 2012. http://www.eclipse.org/emf/compare/ [4] K. Garcés, F. Jouault, P. Cointe, and J. Bézivin. Managing model adaptation by precise detection of metamodel changes. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Model Driven Architecture – Foundations and Applications, ECMDA-FA ’09, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. Springer-Verlag. [5] M. Herrmannsdoerfer, S. Benz, and E. Juergens. Cope – automating coupled evolution of metamodels and models. In S. Drossopoulou, editor, ECOOP 2009 Object-Oriented Programming, volume 5653 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 52–76. 2009 31