Loading in 5 sec....

Feature Modularized Theorems in Software Product LinesPowerPoint Presentation

Feature Modularized Theorems in Software Product Lines

- By
**Jimmy** - Follow User

- 349 Views
- Updated On :

Feature Modularized Theorems in Software Product Lines. Don Batory Department of Computer Sciences University of Texas at Austin. Introduction. My research is at intersection of software product lines program generators domain-specific languages I come from world of

Related searches for Feature Modularized Theorems in

Download Presentation
## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Feature Modularized Theorems in ' - Jimmy

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

### Feature Modularized Theorems in Software Product Lines

JBook not developed with product lines in mind

Don’t write machines in pure Java Added state machines to Java

### Grammars & ASMs

### How the Analysis Works

### Conclusions

Don BatoryDepartment of Computer SciencesUniversity of Texas at Austin

ASM’07

Introduction I come from world of What differentiates my work

- My research is at intersection of
- software product lines
- program generators
- domain-specific languages

- informal software engineering and design
- not ASMs, compilers, formal software development, or mathematics

- start with practice, find a theory that fits practice
- I use algebra to explain my ideas
- precursor to more formal theories of automated development

ASM’07

This Presentation (Broadly) Show how informal software design concepts (which engineers use) can be placed on a simple, general mathematical foundation I am advocating

- Explain how program synthesis scales
- software product lines (families of related programs)
- Feature Oriented Programming (FOP)

- software has a simple algebraic structure
- compositional
- supports declarative languages
- designs can be automatically optimized
- ...

Something important

is missing!

ASM’07

Product lines are used in many industries

automotive, hardware, software

reduce development costs

improve quality

increase variability

Ex: Dell Web site

declarative feature-based spec

Software distinguished from other products by lack of warranty

few results on verifying software product lines (SPL)

verification is a fundamental piece that is missing from FOP

Perspective on Product LinesASM’07

Connection to ASMs ASMs can contribute to generation of correct software in product lines Ongoing and not yet completed work with E. Börger

- Growing community that believe verification must be intimately integrated with software design & modularity
- ASMs and FOP conceived independently
- both use features
- increments in functionality
- as organizational centerpiece

- presentation brings notions of product lines to ASMs
- presentation brings ASM verification techniques to FOP

- status report

ASM’07

correctness proof for defining, interpreting, compiling and executing bytecode for the Java 1.0 language using ASMs

Discoveries

static initializers underspecified (portability)

concurrent initializations may deadlock

compilers violated initialization semantics through standard optimization techniques

+ others...

Case StudyASM’07

This Presentation (Specifically) By composing features, complete grammars, programs, theorems are synthesized

- Show surprising similarity of features in FOP and JBook
- How features modularize structure of
- grammars and programs
- theorems (statements and proofs)

- may be different for each program in a product line
- brings us closer to verifying programs in software product lines

ASM’07

interpreter

compiler

JVMinterpreter

ExpI

·

·

·

·

·

·

grammar

grammar

grammar

grammar

grammar

grammar

interpreter

interpreter

interpreter

interpreter

interpreter

interpreter

compiler

compiler

compiler

compiler

compiler

compiler

JVMinterpreter

JVMinterpreter

JVMinterpreter

JVMinterpreter

JVMinterpreter

JVMinterpreter

ExpE

StmE

StmI

ExpO

StmC

ExpC

Overview of JBook- JBook presents structured way using ASMs to incrementally develop the Java 1.0 grammar, interpreter, compiler, and bytecode (JVM) interpreter (that includes a bytecode verifier)
- incrementally refine sublanguage of imperative expressions

ASM’07

Overview of JBook

- JBook presents structured way using ASMs to incrementally develop the Java 1.0 grammar, interpreter, compiler, and bytecode (JVM) interpreter (that includes a bytecode verifier)
- incrementally refine sublanguage of imperative expressions

java1.0grammar

java1.0

interpreter

java1.0

compiler

JVM

Java1.0

ASM’07

bytecode

compiler

JVM

interpreter

interpreter

JVMRun

InterpRun

proof

Structure of JBook- At this point, various properties are considered
- ex: correctness of the compiler
- equivalence of interpreter execution of program and the JVM execution of compiled program

- definition, correctness of single interpreter, compiler of Java1.0
- show how proofs (and not only programs) are incrementally developed
- let’s give it a product line description

JavaAST

JavaProgram

parser

ASM’07

functions

JBook Product Line- GenVoca is metaprogramming model of SPLs
- base programs are values (constant functions)
- features are functions that map programs to refined programs
- model is an algebra of constants, functions
- expressions (feature compositions) define different programs in JB product line

ASM’07

interpreter

compiler

JVMinterpreter

ExpI

grammar

grammar

grammar

grammar

grammar

grammar

interpreter

interpreter

interpreter

interpreter

interpreter

interpreter

compiler

compiler

compiler

compiler

compiler

compiler

JVMinterpreter

JVMinterpreter

JVMinterpreter

JVMinterpreter

JVMinterpreter

JVMinterpreter

·

·

·

·

·

·

StmE

ExpO

StmI

StmC

ExpE

ExpC

Java10 =

JBook Product Line- JB defines a product line of Java dialects
- Product considered in JBook (· denotes function composition)

ASM’07

JBook Product Line

- JBook composed all the features of JB
- Possible to omit features of Java1.0 to provide different sublanguages of Java, but these are uninteresting
- Better: add features to support
- updates to Java 1.1 – 1.5
- state machines
- metaprogramming
- + others...
- to mix-and-match features to yield a SPL of language dialects
- exactly what we have done in FOP

ASM’07

AHEAD Tool Suite (ATS) Conceptually identical to the JBook organization

- 250+K LOC Java circa 2001
- Tool suite for building GenVoca product lines
- Bootstrapped: ATS is a GenVoca product line of tool suites
- specify dialect of Java as composition of langauge features
- synthesize grammar + tools (parsers, precompilers, etc.)

SoundFamiliar?

ASM’07

start

one

t3

t2

stop

Fire Support Simulation- Built ATS for creating a fire support simulator for US Army
- distributed application where actions of agents are defined by state machines

- programs are essentially unreadable
- nested switch statements, small procedures
- must “reengineer” abstractions from code

- and ability to refine these machines

ASM’07

Pure Java

void otherwise_Default(M m) { ignore_message(m); }

void start_otherwise(M m) { otherwise_Default(m); }

void one_otherwise(M m) { otherwise_Default(m); }

void stop_otherwise(M m) { otherwise_Default(m); }

void exit_start(M m) { }

void exit_one(M m) { }

void exit_stop(M m) { }

void enter_start(M m) { current_state = start; }

void enter_one(M m) { current_state = one; }

void enter_stop(M m) { current_state = stop; }

public void receive_message(M m) {

if (current_state == start) { exit_start(m); start_branches(m); return; }

if (current_state == one) { exit_one(m); one_branches(m); return; }

if (current_state == stop) { exit_stop(m); stop_branches(m); return; } error( -1, m );

}

public String getState() {

if (current_state == start) return "start";

if (current_state == one) return "one";

if (current_state == stop) return "stop";

System.err.println("unrecognizable state " + current_state);

System.exit(1);

return /* should never get here */ null;

}

//

boolean booltest() { ... }

example() { current_state = start; }

}

class example { int current_state;

final static int start = 1000;

final static int one = 1001;

final static int stop = 1002;

boolean t1_test(M m) { return !booltest(); }

boolean t2_test(M m) { return booltest(); }

boolean t3_test(M m) { return true; }

void t1_action(M m) { }

void t2_action(M m) { }

void t3_action(M m) { }

void start_branches(M m) {

if ( t1_test(m))

{ t1_action(m); enter_one(m); return; }

if ( t2_test(m))

{ t2_action(m); enter_stop(m); return; }

; start_otherwise(m);

}

void one_branches(M m) {

if ( t3_test(m))

{ t3_action(m); enter_stop(m); return; }

; one_otherwise(m);

}

void stop_branches(M m) {

; stop_otherwise(m);

}

ASM’07

Transitiondecls

Constructor,

methods

State Machine Extension to Javastate_machine example {

event_delivery receive_message(M m);

no_transition { error( -1, m ); }

otherwise_default { ignore_message(m); }

states start, one, stop;

transition t1 : start -> one

conditions !booltest() do { /* t1 action */ }

transition t2 : start -> stop

conditions booltest() do { /* t2 action */ }

transition t3 : one -> stop

conditions true do { /* t3 action */ }

//

boolean booltest() { ... }

example() { current_state = start; }

}

State decls

ASM’07

Pure Java

void otherwise_Default(M m) { ignore_message(m); }

void start_otherwise(M m) { otherwise_Default(m); }

void one_otherwise(M m) { otherwise_Default(m); }

void stop_otherwise(M m) { otherwise_Default(m); }

void exit_start(M m) { }

void exit_one(M m) { }

void exit_stop(M m) { }

void enter_start(M m) { current_state = start; }

void enter_one(M m) { current_state = one; }

void enter_stop(M m) { current_state = stop; }

public void receive_message(M m) {

if (current_state == start) { exit_start(m); start_branches(m); return; }

if (current_state == one) { exit_one(m); one_branches(m); return; }

if (current_state == stop) { exit_stop(m); stop_branches(m); return; } error( -1, m );

}

public String getState() {

if (current_state == start) return "start";

if (current_state == one) return "one";

if (current_state == stop) return "stop";

System.err.println("unrecognizable state " + current_state);

System.exit(1);

return /* should never get here */ null;

}

//

boolean booltest() { ... }

example() { current_state = start; }

}

class example { int current_state;

final static int start = 1000;

final static int one = 1001;

final static int stop = 1002;

boolean t1_test(M m) { return !booltest(); }

boolean t2_test(M m) { return booltest(); }

boolean t3_test(M m) { return true; }

void t1_action(M m) { }

void t2_action(M m) { }

void t3_action(M m) { }

void start_branches(M m) {

if ( t1_test(m))

{ t1_action(m); enter_one(m); return; }

if ( t2_test(m))

{ t2_action(m); enter_stop(m); return; }

; start_otherwise(m);

}

void one_branches(M m) {

if ( t3_test(m))

{ t3_action(m); enter_stop(m); return; }

; one_otherwise(m);

}

void stop_branches(M m) {

; stop_otherwise(m);

}

ASM’07

t4

two

t5

t1

start

one

t3

t2

stop

State Machine Refinements Easy too…refines state_machine example {

state two;

transition t4 : start -> two

conditions … do { /* t4 action */ }

transition t5 : two -> stop

conditions … do { /* t5 action */ }

}

ASM’07

Reduction of Complexity

- Simplified mapping between “white-board” designs of agent protocols and implementation:
- direct and invertible specifications
- writing state machines matches informal designs domain experts use
- requires fewer mental gymnastics to understand code
- simplifies maintenance and extensibility
- less error-prone product

ASM’07

ExCIS 2007 Now integrated with other simulators Again, ExCIS is an application that was built using ATS

- Fire Support Simulator for U.S. Army (since 2001)
- 80K LOC in AHEAD
- 200 features
- 34 distinct state machines
- 147 states
- 650 transitions
- 217 classes (different from state machines)

ASM’07

Returning to Theme of This Talk

- Build versions of ATS by composing language features
- Ex: to extend Java with state machines: newJava = SM · Java
- Synthesize language grammar, tools for editing, pretty printing, transforming programs by feature composition
- Conceptually identical to the JBook organization

ASM’07

AHEAD Fact#1: every program has multiple representations Fact#2: when a feature is added to a program, any or all of its representations are refined Program representations are refined lock-step by features

- AHEAD is generalization of GenVoca that exposes different representations of programs and reveals ability to refine representations by features
- governed by two simple facts

- source, documentation, makefiles, etc.

- refine source, refine documentation, refine makefiles, ...

ASM’07

ASM interpreter of ExpI

ASM compiler of ExpI

ASM JVM interpreter of ExpI

ASM of other representation(s)

GExpI

IExpI

CExpI

JExpI

Constants- GenVoca constant is a vector of representations of a base program
- ExpI sublanguage of Java imperative expressions

ExpI =

TExpI

ASM’07

ASM interpreter refinement of StmI

ASM compiler refinement of StmI

ASM JVM interpreter refinement of StmI

ASM refinement other representation(s)

DGStmI

DIStmI

DCStmI

DJStmI

Functions- GenVoca function is a vector of representation refinements
- StmI adds imperative statements to Java

StmI =

DTStmI

ASM’07

DGStmI ·GExpI

DGStmI

GExpI

DIStmI ·IExpI

DIStmI

IExpI

=

DCStmI ·CExpI

DCStmI

CExpI

DJStmI ·JExpI

DJStmI

JExpI

DTStmI ·TExpI

DTStmI

TExpI

Composing Features- Is vector composition!
- ex: Imperative Java

JavaI

=

StmI

ExpI

ASM’07

Theorems DTStmI denotes refinement of this theorem by StmI feature DTExpI·TExpI synthesizes correctness theorem for JavaI

- Are another program representation
- JBook presents theorems about the programs that it develops, among them correctness of the Java1.0 compiler
- TExpI denotes theorem of correctness for ExpI compiler
- proof that interpreter runs of an ExpI program are equivalent to the JVM run of the compiled program

- show how a theorem is refined later...

ASM’07

What This Means Composing features synthesizes Different compositions yield the representations of all programs in a product line One more idea in AHEAD...

- Claim: features modularize all program representations
- grammars, code, and theorems

- grammar, code, and theorems
- for a target program in a product line

- show examples shortly

ASM’07

Recursion and Nested Vectors Theorems have vector structure T= [ S, P ] Theorems can be refined DT = [ DS, DP ] Theorems can be synthesized DT·T = [ DS·S, DP·P ] Now let’s look closer and answer a fundamental question...

- Elements of a vector can themselves be a vector
- representation can have sub-representations, recursively
- express as refinable vector
- composition operator (·) recursively composes nested vectors
- essence of AHEAD

- statement S
- proof P

ASM’07

What is a Refinement? Refinements of ASMs take several forms [Börger 2003]

- A feature is a monotonic transformation that maps an input artifact to a modified artifact
- Structure preserving:
- new elements can be added
- existing elements can be extended but not deleted

- AHEAD uses three
- (my term) introductions
- conservative extension
- parallel addition

ASM’07

Introduction Adding new ASMs is very common Adding new methods & new fields to existing classes,adding new classes common in AHEAD Dominant action of features – virtually all introductions Exceptional cases that existing elements are refined...

- Adding new elements is most common form of refinement
- mapping null elements to non-null elements in a vector
- called introduction

ASM’07

Conservative Extension of ASMs

- Analogous to conservative theory extensions in logic
- Define condition for the ‘new case’ in which extended ASM either has no well-defined meaning or should be prevented from executing
- Define new ASM with the desired additional behavior
- Add the new ASM and restrict the old ASM by guarding it with the negation of the ‘new case’ condition

ASM’07

Parallel Addition of ASMs

- Define a new ASM to add the extra behavior
- Guard the new ASM with the same conditions of the original ASM
- Equivalently – extending rule (a)

ASM’07

Parallel Addition in AHEAD

- AHEAD refinement:
- CLOS terminology:
- after-method
- before-method
- around-method

ASM’07

Frequency of Element Extensions

- Conservative least frequently used
- Parallel addition most common in refining existing elements
- Hard to find corresponding statistics in JBook ASMs
- differences in languages
- before/after refinements largely hidden or encoded as state transitions than straight-line code

Basically we are doing the same thing...

ASM’07

ASM’07

Grammars Exactly the same technique used by AHEAD in modularizing and refining grammars

- ExpI (imperative expression) grammar is:
- ExpC refines this grammar with object field & method calls
- adds new productions
- refines existing productions

ASM’07

Val

Abruption

Normal

Break

Continue

Return

Exception

Reference

PrimValue

Null

ExpI

StmI

StmC

ExpO

ExpE

Inheritance Hierarchies- Phrase – result of executing an expression or statement

This progressive elaboration of inheritance

hierarchies is typical of FOP designs

ASM’07

StmC defines actions taken when a method is executed

StmO adds constructors, exitMethod refined to handle the actions of constructors

Easy to express as an AHEAD refinement of Java methods

Last Example: ASMsASM’07

Statement of T isa list of invariants

14 invariants in all

Don’t need to knowthe specifics of theinvariants for thispresentation

Theorem T is Correctness of CompilerASM’07

(exc-clinit)

(begS)

(new)

(clinit)

(stm)

(fin)

(exp)

(abr)

Java10 = StmE ·

ExpE ·

ExpO ·

ExpC ·

StmI ·

Statement of CorrectnessTheorem 14.1.1 (Correctness of the Compiler). There exists

a monotonic mapping s from the run of the ASM for a Java

program into the run of the ASM for the compiled JVM program

such that the following invariants are satisfied:

(reg)

(bool1)

(exc)

As features are composed, the theorem statementis refined by adding new invariants

but there’s more...

(bool2)

(begE)

StmC ·

ExpI

ASM’07

Invariants Can Be Refined Too! ExpE adds exceptions ExpE refines invariant (abr)by adding qualifying condition And introduces (exc)invariant to cover casewhen abruption is an exception

- StmI feature defines (abr)invariant:
- conditions_1 do notapply to exceptions

Each program in the JBook product line has aTheorem for the Correctness of the Compiler.As features are composed, the theorem statementis refined by the addition of new invariants andthe refinement of existing invariants.

ASM’07

Proof of Correctness

- Proof is a case analysis using structural induction to show correctness of compiling each kind of expression
- Proof is a list of cases that show invariants holds
- 83 cases in all

ASM’07

Initial Set of Cases

- ExpI defines imperative expressions:
- ExpI introduces variables in interpreter & JVM
- ExpI defines 5 invariants (reg), (begE), (bool1), (bool2), (exc)to relate these variables
- one or more proof cases for each kind of expression
- 13 cases in all

ASM’07

Adding Cases

- StmI adds imperative statements:
- StmI introduces new variables into the interpreter & JVM
- StmI invariants (begS), (stm), (abr) relate these variables
- ExpI neither references or updates these variables, so it satisfies StmI invariants
- StmI doesn’t update ExpI variables, so it satisfies ExpI invariants
- proof is extended with additional cases, one or more for each production that StmI invariants hold
- 22 additional cases

ASM’07

Adding Cases

- Same pattern repeats
- Invariant refinement: original proof cases remains unchanged

As features are composed, the length of the proof (in # of cases) increases

there’s more...

ASM’07

Proof Cases Can Be Refined Too!

- ExpI defines case that shows the (exp) and (reg) invariants are satisfied
- StmE introduces try-catch-finally statements and a new invariant (fin) that deals with statement return addresses
- ExpI proof case must be extended to deal with (fin)

ASM’07

Refining Cases

original

proof

case of

ExpI

Each program in the JBook product line has a Proof of Correctness.As features are composed, the proofis refined by the addition of new cases andthe refinement of existing cases.

part

that is

added

by StmI

ASM’07

Recap

- Proofs, like code and grammars, have a structure
- Within a structure there are extension points or variability points where more structure can be added
- Features exploit structure variability by modularizing refinements of all program representations

ASM’07

Validation Task was not difficult (often tedious) That we could define explicit features confirmed our belief that a clear composition design goes together with a system of invariants and their proofs

- Prior slides document results our validationTook some time to review the JBook details to isolate the contents of individual features
- ASM definitions, grammars, theorems

- covered 200 pages in JBook
- proof occupies 37 of these pages

ASM’07

javasource

javacc

text

text

ü

theorems

grammar

javac

ü

what is the counterpart

to syntax & type checking

for theorems

how do we know this

text constitutes a correct

proof?

?

Future Challenges- Our work is only a first step toward goal of automatically verifying software product lines
- Realize what is being synthesized:

syntactically correct

type-correct

syntactically correct

well-formed(i.e., type-correct)

ASM’07

Perspective Need to look beyond manual certification Once proofs are in a machine manageable form,proof checkers could be used

- In JBook, the analysis of the proof builds upon the understanding of the subject matter by the engineer
- manual certification of proof was performed

- need for mechanized proofs of ASMs has been recognized
- they exist for various ASM case studies

ASM’07

Proof Checkers Verifying a program in a product line:

- Theorems are expressed in a designated logic
- Certifies that proof statements are well-formed in that logic
- Proof checking reduces to type checking proof document that defines the logic’s
- syntax
- judgements
- and rule schemes

- generate program and theorems
- use proof checker to certify theorems automatically

Useful step forward:exposes structure (interface & variation points)

of theorems and tells us how we can proceed

ASM’07

Can Go Even Further The analysis performed is purely structural Idea: should work for theorems as well

- Recent work (Thaker & Batory 2006) shows how syntactic and type correctness properties of all programs in a product line can be verified using a SAT solver
- instead of generating & then compiling each program of a product line
- analysis does the same faster, cheaper, and better

- works for product-lines of Java programs
- works also for product-lines of XML documents

- instead of generating & certifying each program of a product line
- use a similar analysis

ASM’07

ASM’07

and

Engine

Transmission

Car Body

Cruise Control

or: 1+

choose1

Gasoline

Electric

Manual

Automatic

Feature Diagrams- Mandatory – features that are required
- Optional – features that are optional
- And – all subfeatures (children) are selected
- Alternative – only 1 subfeature can be selected
- Or – 1+ or 0+ subfeatures can be selected
- Constraints – cross tree constraints (Cruise Þ Automatic)

ASM’07

Analysis Analyze code of each feature separately

- Map feature model FM to a propositional formula PFM
- products of SPL Û satisfiability assignments of the formula

- check if code fragments are syntactically correct and type correct
- identify implementation constraints among different features
- feature F references a variable that is only defined in feature AF Þ A (if F is used, A must be used too)

ASM’07

SAT Solving For theorems, substitute “theorem” for “implementation” Bottom line: something interesting is here and is worth a closer look

- Does there exist a product where feature F is present but not feature A? is PFM Þ Ø (F Þ A) satisfiable?
- If so, the bindings tell us:
- our feature model is wrong
- our feature implementation are wrong
- or both

ASM’07

ASM’07

Conclusions We took first steps toward this extended goal by showing how features integrate program verification & design Composing features yields complete programs & theorems

- Providing warranties for programs is a long-standing goal
- Pragmatic extension is to provide warranties for programs in a software product line
- SPLs successfully amortize the cost of program development
- show provide similar benefits for verification

- feature encapsulates refinements of programs and theorems

ASM’07

Conclusions Clear ASMs and FOP can leverage each other’s results Although our work is preliminary

- Computer Science is still a relatively young discipline
- different communities are looking at the same problem from different perspectives
- and don’t know about each other’s work

- both have recognized the utility of step-wise development of programs for different reasons and purposes

- new insights on verification
- next steps are to evaluate practicality of refining theorems
- certify generated theorems by proof checkers
- see if certification can scale to entire product lines by exploiting recent results in SPL verification

ASM’07

Download Presentation

Connecting to Server..