Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clone Detection for Graph-Based Model Transformation Languages

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Theory and Practice of Model Transformations (ICMT 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9765))

Abstract

Cloning is a convenient mechanism to enable reuse across and within software artifacts. On the downside, it is also a practice related to significant long-term maintainability impediments, thus generating a need to identify clones in affected artifacts. A large variety of clone detection techniques has been proposed for programming and modeling languages; yet no specific ones have emerged for model transformation languages. In this paper, we explore clone detection for graph-based model transformation languages. We introduce potential use cases for such techniques in the context of constructive and analytical quality assurance. From these use cases, we derive a set of key requirements. We describe our customization of existing model clone detection techniques allowing us to address these requirements. Finally, we provide an experimental evaluation, indicating that our customization of ConQAT, one of the existing techniques, is well-suited to satisfy all identified requirements.

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

Access this chapter

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In favor of simplicity, we neglect attributes and their encoding in these illustrations.

  2. 2.

    https://www.cqse.eu/en/products/conqat/install/.

References

  1. Glass, R.L.: Frequently forgotten fundamental facts about software engineering. IEEE Softw. 3, 110–112 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Koschke, R.: Survey of research on software clones. In: Dagstuhl Seminar 06301: Duplication, Redundancy, and Similarity in Software. LZI (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fowler, M.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2002)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim, M., Sazawal, V., Notkin, D., Murphy, G.: An empirical study of code clone genealogies. In: ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 187–196. ACM (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Roy, C.K., Cordy, J.R., Koschke, R.: Comparison and evaluation of code clone detection techniques and tools: a qualitative approach. Sci. Comput. Program. 74(7), 470–495 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Rattan, D., Bhatia, R., Singh, M.: Software clone detection: a systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(7), 1165–1199 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kusel, A., Schönböck, J., Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W.: Reuse in model-to-model transformation languages: are we there yet? Softw. Syst. Model. 14(2), 537–572 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Classification of model transformation approaches. In: Workshop on Generative Techniques in the Context of the Model Driven Architecture, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1–17 USA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Strüber, D., Rubin, J., Arendt, T., Chechik, M., Taentzer, G., Plöger, J.: RuleMerger: automatic construction of variability-based model transformation rules. In: Stevens, P., Wasowski, A. (eds.) FASE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9633, pp. 122–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Strüber, D.: Model-driven engineering in the large: refactoring techniques for models and model transformation systems, Ph.D. dissertation. Philipps-Universität Marburg (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schönböck, J., Schwinger, W., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Lauder, M., Schürr, A., et al.: Surveying rule inheritance in model-to-model transformation languages. J. Object Technol. 11(2), 1–46 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Anjorin, A., Saller, K., Lochau, M., Schürr, A.: Modularizing triple graph grammars using rule refinement. In: Gnesi, S., Rensink, A. (eds.) FASE 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8411, pp. 340–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Strüber, D., Rubin, J., Chechik, M., Taentzer, G.: A variability-based approach to reusable and efficient model transformations. In: Egyed, A., Schaefer, I. (eds.) FASE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9033, pp. 283–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nguyen, H.A., Nguyen, T.T., Pham, N.H., Al-Kofahi, J., Nguyen, T.N.: Clone management for evolving software. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 38(5), 1008–1026 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Narasimhan, K., Reichenbach, C.: Copy and paste redeemed. In: International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 630–640. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lano, K., Kolahdouz-Rahimi, S.: Model-transformation design patterns. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 40(12), 1224–1259 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blouin, D., Plantec, A., Dissaux, P., Singhoff, F., Diguet, J.-P.: Synchronization of models of rich languages with triple graph grammars: an experience report. In: Di Ruscio, D., Varró, D. (eds.) ICMT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8568, pp. 106–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Heckel, R., Küster, J.M., Taentzer, G.: Confluence of typed attributed graph transformation systems. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2505, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Beller, M., Zaidman, A., Karpov, A.: The last line effect. In: International Conference on Program Comprehension, pp. 240–243. IEEE Press (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bauer, J., Boneva, I., Kurbán, M.E., Rensink, A.: A modal-logic based graph abstraction. In: Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Rozenberg, G., Taentzer, G. (eds.) ICGT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5214, pp. 321–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Cuadrado, J.S., Guerra, E., De Lara, J.: Generic model transformations: write once, reuse everywhere. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) ICMT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6707, pp. 62–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Störrle, H.: Towards clone detection in UML domain models. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 12(2), 307–329 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tichy, M., Krause, C., Liebel, G.: Detecting performance bad smells for Henshin model transformations. In: AMT Workshop 1077 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Störrle, H.: On the impact of layout quality to understanding UML diagrams: size matters. In: Dingel, J., Schulte, W., Ramos, I., Abrehäo, S., Insfran, E. (eds.) MODELS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8767, pp. 518–534. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Yan, X., Han, J.: gspan: graph-based substructure pattern mining. In: ICDM 2003, pp. 721–724. IEEE (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pham, N.H., Nguyen, H.A., Nguyen, T.T., Al-Kofahi, J.M., Nguyen, T.N.: Complete and accurate clone detection in graph-based models. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 276–286. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Deissenboeck, F., Hummel, B., Juergens, E., Pfaehler, M., Schaetz, B.: Model clone detection in practice. In: Workshops on Software Clones, pp. 57–64. ACM (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Arendt, T., Biermann, E., Jurack, S., Krause, C., Taentzer, G.: Henshin: advanced concepts and tools for in-place EMF model transformations. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6394. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Arendt, T., Habel, A., Radke, H., Taentzer, G.: From core OCL invariants to nested graph constraints. In: Giese, H., König, B. (eds.) ICGT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8571, pp. 97–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bürdek, J., Kehrer, T., Lochau, M., Reuling, D., Kelter, U., Schürr, A.: Reasoning about product-line evolution using complex feature model differences. J. Autom. Softw. Eng. 1–47 (2015). doi:10.1007/s10515-015-0185-3

    Google Scholar 

  31. Strüber, D., Schulz, S.: A tool environment for managing families of model transformation rules. In: International Conference on Graph Transformation. Springer (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Störrle, H.: Effective and efficient model clone detection. In: De Nicola, R., Hennicker, R. (eds.) Wirsing Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 8950, pp. 440–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ekanayake, C.C., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., La Rosa, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Approximate clone detection in repositories of business process models. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 302–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Liang, Z., Cheng, Y., Chen, J.: A novel optimized path-based algorithm for model clone detection. J. Softw. 9(7), 1810–1817 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Alalfi, M.H., Cordy, J.R., Dean, T.R., Stephan, M., Stevenson, A.: Models are code too: near-miss clone detection for simulink models. In: International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 295–304. IEEE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Van Amstel, M.F., Van Den Brand, M.G.: Model transformation analysis: staying ahead of the maintenance nightmare. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) ICMT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6707, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Kapová, L., Goldschmidt, T., Becker, S., Henss, J.: Evaluating maintainability with code metrics for model-to-model transformations. In: Heineman, G.T., Kofron, J., Plasil, F. (eds.) QoSA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6093, pp. 151–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Wimmer, M., Perez, S.M., Jouault, F., Cabot, J.: A catalogue of refactorings for model-to-model transformations. J. Object Technol. 11(2), 1–40 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gerpheide, C.M., Schiffelers, R.R., Serebrenik, A.: Assessing and improving quality of QVTo model transformations. Softw. Qual. J. 1–38 (2015). doi:10.1007/s11219-015-9280-8

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    Daniel Strüber & Jennifer Plöger

  2. Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

    Vlad Acreţoaie

Authors
  1. Daniel Strüber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Plöger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vlad Acreţoaie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Strüber .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Pieter Van Gorp

  2. University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany

    Gregor Engels

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Strüber, D., Plöger, J., Acreţoaie, V. (2016). Clone Detection for Graph-Based Model Transformation Languages. In: Van Gorp, P., Engels, G. (eds) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations. ICMT 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9765. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42064-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42064-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42063-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42064-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation