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

• Context

• Problem

• Related work

• Our approach

• Conclusions and future work

2

Agenda

Context

Model-driven software development is an approach

that proposes to use models as first-class entities for

creating software products.

3

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

Problem Software evolution in the context of MDSD

Grammars [[slave]]

Metamodel [[master]]

Transformations [[slave]]

Models [[slave]]

6

Problem Software evolution in the context of MDSD

Grammars [[slave]]

Transformations [[slave]]

Models [[slave]] Metamodel

[[master]]

7

Migration process

Changes propagation

Impact analysis

Changes detection

8

Migration process

Changes propagation

Impact analysis

Changes detection

Current approaches for model

changes detection

9

Comparison-based approaches

List of changes [2]

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

Comparison-based approaches

Compare two versions of the same metamodel and discover the differences

12

Metamodel [[master]]

Metamodel [[master]]

Changes model

Comparison-based approaches

Compare two versions of the same metamodel and discover the differences

13

Metamodel [[master]]

Metamodel [[master]]

Changes model

EMFCompare (syntactical) [3]

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

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]

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

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?

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

21

Changes taxonomy

Change

Syntactical

Semantical constrained

Semantical composite

Atomic

Composite

22

Changes taxonomy Detection

Change

Syntactical

Semantical constrained

Semantical composite

Atomic

Composite

Can be detected by syntactical analysis

(EMFCompare)

23

Syntactical changes

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

25

Semantical constrained changes

RETYPE PROPERTY [[syntactical]]

The new type is super type of the old

one satisfies

GENERALIZE PROPERTY BY TYPE [[syntactical]]

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

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:

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

Acknowledgements

29

Anne Etien Université de Lille I

Lille, France

Germán Méndez ECOPETROL S.A

Bogotá, Colombia

Louis Rose University of York

York, UK

• 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

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

32

Questions

df.mendez73@uniandes.edu.co

David Méndez-Acuña