Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Formal Methods Teaching Workshop

FMTea 2021: Formal Methods Teaching pp 101–116Cite as

Teaching Correctness-by-Construction and Post-hoc Verification – The Online Experience

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 13122))

Abstract

Correctness of software is an important concern in many safety-critical areas like aviation and the automotive industry. In order to have skilled developers, teaching formal methods is crucial. In our software quality course, we teach students two techniques for correct software development, post-hoc verification and correctness-by-construction. Due to Covid, the last course was held online. We present our lessons learned of adapting the course to an online format on the basis of two user studies; one user study held in person in 2019 and one online user study held after the online course. For good online teaching, we suggest the use of accessible (web-)tools for active participation of the students to compensate the advantages of teaching in person.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.isf.cs.tu-bs.de/WebCorC/.

  2. 2.

    https://github.com/Runge93/UserstudyCbCPhV.

  3. 3.

    The calculation is explained in the work by Feigenspan et al. [18].

References

  1. Abrial, J.R.: Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Abrial, J.R., Butler, M., Hallerstede, S., Hoang, T.S., Mehta, F., Voisin, L.: Rodin: an open toolset for modelling and reasoning in Event-B. STTT 12(6), 447–466 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H., Ulbrich, M.: Deductive Software Verification-The KeY Book: From Theory to Practice, vol. 10001. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49812-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Amighi, A., Blom, S., Darabi, S., Huisman, M., Mostowski, W., Zaharieva-Stojanovski, M.: Verification of concurrent systems with VerCors. In: Bernardo, M., Damiani, F., Hähnle, R., Johnsen, E.B., Schaefer, I. (eds.) SFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8483, pp. 172–216. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07317-0_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Back, R.J.: Invariant based programming: basic approach and teaching experiences. FAOC 21(3), 227–244 (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Back, R.-J., Eriksson, J., Myreen, M.: Testing and verifying invariant based programs in the SOCOS environment. In: Gurevich, Y., Meyer, B. (eds.) TAP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4454, pp. 61–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73770-4_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Back, R.J., Wright, J.: Refinement Calculus: A Systematic Introduction. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Barnes, J.G.P.: High Integrity Software: The Spark Approach to Safety and Security. Pearson Education (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beckert, B., Grebing, S., Böhl, F.: A usability evaluation of interactive theorem provers using focus groups. In: Canal, C., Idani, A. (eds.) SEFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8938, pp. 3–19. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15201-1_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Beckert, B., Grebing, S., Böhl, F.: How to put usability into focus: using focus groups to evaluate the usability of interactive theorem provers. EPTCS 167, 4–13 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Cataño, N.: Teaching formal methods: lessons learnt from using Event-B. In: Dongol, B., Petre, L., Smith, G. (eds.) FMTea 2019. LNCS, vol. 11758, pp. 212–227. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32441-4_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, E., et al.: VCC: a practical system for verifying concurrent C. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) TPHOLs 2009. LNCS, vol. 5674, pp. 23–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03359-9_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Cok, D.R.: OpenJML: JML for Java 7 by extending OpenJDK. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 472–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20398-5_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Creuse, L., Dross, C., Garion, C., Hugues, J., Huguet, J.: Teaching deductive verification through FRAMA-C and SPARK for non computer scientists. In: Dongol, B., Petre, L., Smith, G. (eds.) FMTea 2019. LNCS, vol. 11758, pp. 23–36. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32441-4_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Cuoq, P., Kirchner, F., Kosmatov, N., Prevosto, V., Signoles, J., Yakobowski, B.: Frama-C. In: Eleftherakis, G., Hinchey, M., Holcombe, M. (eds.) SEFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7504, pp. 233–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33826-7_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Dijkstra, E.W.: A Discipline of Programming. Prentice Hall, Hoboken (1976)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Divasón, J., Romero, A.: Using Krakatoa for teaching formal verification of Java programs. In: Dongol, B., Petre, L., Smith, G. (eds.) FMTea 2019. LNCS, vol. 11758, pp. 37–51. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32441-4_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Feigenspan, J., Kästner, C., Liebig, J., Apel, S., Hanenberg, S.: Measuring programming experience. In: ICPC, pp. 73–82. IEEE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Havelund, K., Pressburger, T.: Model checking Java programs using Java pathfinder. STTT 2(4), 366–381 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hentschel, M., Hähnle, R., Bubel, R.: Can formal methods improve the efficiency of code reviews? In: Ábrahám, E., Huisman, M. (eds.) IFM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9681, pp. 3–19. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33693-0_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Jacobs, B., Smans, J., Piessens, F.: A quick tour of the VeriFast program verifier. In: Ueda, K. (ed.) APLAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6461, pp. 304–311. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17164-2_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Johnson, B., Song, Y., Murphy-Hill, E., Bowdidge, R.: Why don’t software developers use static analysis tools to find bugs? In: ICSE, pp. 672–681. IEEE Press (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kourie, D.G., Watson, B.W.: The Correctness-by-Construction Approach to Programming. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Laugwitz, B., Held, T., Schrepp, M.: Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Holzinger, A. (ed.) USAB 2008. LNCS, vol. 5298, pp. 63–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Leino, K.R.M.: Dafny: an automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6355, pp. 348–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17511-4_20

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu, S., Takahashi, K., Hayashi, T., Nakayama, T.: Teaching formal methods in the context of software engineering. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 41(2), 17–23 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Meyer, B.: Eiffel: a language and environment for software engineering. JSS 8(3), 199–246 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Morgan, C.: Programming from Specifications, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Hoboken (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Oliveira, M.V.M., Cavalcanti, A., Woodcock, J.: ArcAngel: a tactic language for refinement. FAOC 15(1), 28–47 (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Pearce, D.J., Groves, L.: Whiley: a platform for research in software verification. In: Erwig, M., Paige, R.F., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8225, pp. 238–248. Springer, Cham (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02654-1_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Petiot, G., Kosmatov, N., Botella, B., Giorgetti, A., Julliand, J.: Your proof fails? Testing helps to find the reason. In: Aichernig, B.K.K., Furia, C.A.A. (eds.) TAP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9762, pp. 130–150. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41135-4_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Runge, T., Schaefer, I., Cleophas, L., Thüm, T., Kourie, D., Watson, B.W.: Tool support for correctness-by-construction. In: Hähnle, R., van der Aalst, W. (eds.) FASE 2019. LNCS, vol. 11424, pp. 25–42. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Runge, T., Thüm, T., Cleophas, L., Schaefer, I., Watson, B.W., et al.: Comparing correctness-by-construction with post-hoc verification—a qualitative user study. In: Sekerinski, E. (ed.) FM 2019. LNCS, vol. 12233, pp. 388–405. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54997-8_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Tschannen, J., Furia, C.A., Nordio, M., Polikarpova, N.: AutoProof: auto-active functional verification of object-oriented programs. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 566–580. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Watson, B.W., Kourie, D.G., Schaefer, I., Cleophas, L.: Correctness-by-construction and post-hoc verification: a marriage of convenience? In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 730–748. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_52

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Huu Cuong Nguyen and Malena Horstmann for their help in preparing and conducting the user study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TU Braunschweig, Brunswick, Germany

    Tobias Runge, Tabea Bordis & Ina Schaefer

  2. University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany

    Thomas Thüm

Authors
  1. Tobias Runge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tabea Bordis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Thüm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ina Schaefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tobias Runge , Tabea Bordis , Thomas Thüm or Ina Schaefer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. INESC-ID & IST, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    João F. Ferreira

  2. INESC TEC and University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal

    Alexandra Mendes

  3. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Claudio Menghi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Runge, T., Bordis, T., Thüm, T., Schaefer, I. (2021). Teaching Correctness-by-Construction and Post-hoc Verification – The Online Experience. In: Ferreira, J.F., Mendes, A., Menghi, C. (eds) Formal Methods Teaching. FMTea 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13122. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91550-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91550-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91549-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91550-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation