skip to main content
10.1145/3307630.3342705acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessplcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Enabling Efficient Automated Configuration Generation and Management

Published:09 September 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Creating and managing valid configurations is one of the main tasks in software product line engineering. Due to the often complex constraints from a feature model, some kind of automated configuration generation is required to facilitate the configuration process for users and developers. For instance, decision propagation can be applied to support users in configuring a product from a software product line (SPL) with less manual effort and error potential, leading to a semi-automatic configuration process. Furthermore, fully-automatic configuration processes, such as random sampling or t-wise interaction sampling can be employed to test or to optimize an SPL. However, current techniques for automated configuration generation still do not scale well to SPLs with large and complex feature models. Within our thesis, we identify current challenges regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the semi- and fully-automatic configuration process and aim to address these challenges by introducing novel techniques and improving current ones. Our preliminary results show already show promising progress for both, the semi- and fully-automatic configuration process.

References

  1. Mustafa Al-Hajjaji, Sebastian Krieter, Thomas Thüm, Malte Lochau, and Gunter Saake. 2016. IncLing: Efficient Product-line Testing Using Incremental Pairwise Sampling. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts & Experiences (GPCE). ACM, 144--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Sven Apel, Don Batory, Christian Kästner, and Gunter Saake. 2013. Feature-Oriented Software Product Lines. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Don Batory. 2005. Feature Models, Grammars, and Propositional Formulas. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). Springer, 7--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Don Batory, David Benavides, and Antonio Ruiz-Cortés. 2006. Automated Analyses of Feature Models: Challenges Ahead. Commun. ACM (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. David Benavides, Sergio Segura, and Antonio Ruiz-Cortés. 2010. Automated Analysis of Feature Models 20 Years Later: A Literature Review. Information Systems 35, 6 (2010), 615--708. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Thorsten Berger, Ralf Rublack, Divya Nair, Joanne M. Atlee, Martin Becker, Krzysztof Czarnecki, and Andrzej Wąsowski. 2013. A Survey of Variability Modeling in Industrial Practice. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS). ACM, 7:1--7:8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Thorsten Berger, Steven She, Rafael Lotufo, Andrzej Wąsowski, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. 2010. Variability Modeling in the Real: A Perspective from the Operating Systems Domain. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). ACM, 73--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Johannes Bürdek, Timo Kehrer, Malte Lochau, Dennis Reuling, Udo Kelter, and Andy Schürr. 2015. Reasoning about Product-Line Evolution Using Complex Feature Model Differences. Automated Software Engineering 23, 4 (2015), 687--733. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Krzysztof Czarnecki and Ulrich Eisenecker. 2000. Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. ACM/Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Krzysztof Czarnecki and Andrzej Wąsowski. 2007. Feature Diagrams and Logics: There and Back Again. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). IEEE Computer Science, 23--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. José A Galindo, Mathieu Acher, Juan Manuel Tirado, Cristian Vidal, Benoit Baudry, and David Benavides. 2016. Exploiting the enumeration of all feature model configurations: a new perspective with distributed computing. In Proceedings of the 20th International Systems and Software Product Line Conference. ACM, 74--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Christopher Henard, Mike Papadakis, and Yves Le Traon. 2014. Mutation-Based Generation of Software Product Line Test Configurations. In Search-Based Software Engineering, Claire Le Goues and Shin Yoo (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8636. Springer International Publishing, 92--106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Christopher Henard, Mike Papadakis, Gilles Perrouin, Jacques Klein, Patrick Heymans, and Yves Le Traon. 2014. Bypassing the Combinatorial Explosion: Using Similarity to Generate and Prioritize T-Wise Test Configurations for Software Product Lines. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE) 40, 7 (2014), 650--670. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Arnaud Hubaux, Yingfei Xiong, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. 2012. A User Survey of Configuration Challenges in Linux and eCos. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS). ACM, 149--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Arnaud Hubaux, Yingfei Xiong, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. 2012. A User Survey of Configuration Challenges in Linux and eCos. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS). 149--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Mikolas Janota. 2008. Do SAT Solvers Make Good Configurators?. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). 191--195.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Andy Kenner, Christian Kästner, Steffen Haase, and Thomas Leich. 2010. Type-Chef: Toward Type Checking #Ifdef Variability in C. In Proceedings of the International SPLC Workshop Feature-Oriented Software Development (FOSD). ACM, 25--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Alexander Knüppel, Thomas Thüm, Stephan Mennicke, Jens Meinicke, and Ina Schaefer. 2017. Is There a Mismatch Between Real-World Feature Models and Product-Line Research?. In Proceedings of the European Software Engineering Conference/Foundations of Software Engineering (ESECFSE). ACM, 291--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Sebastian Krieter, Thomas Thüm, Sandro Schulze, Reimar Schröter, and Gunter Saake. 2018. Propagating Configuration Decisions with Modal Implication Graphs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). ACM, 898--909. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Daniel Le Berre and Anne Parrain. 2010. The Sat4j Library, Release 2.2, System Description. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 7, 2--3 (2010), 59--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jörg Liebig, Alexander von Rhein, Christian Kästner, Sven Apel, Jens Dörre, and Christian Lengauer. 2013. Scalable Analysis of Variable Software. In Proceedings of the European Software Engineering Conference/Foundations of Software Engineering (ESECFSE). ACM, 81--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Sascha Lity, Sophia Nahrendorf, Thomas Thüm, Christoph Seidl, and Ina Schaefer. 2018. 175% Modeling for Product-Line Evolution of Domain Artifacts. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS). ACM, 27--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jens Meinicke, Thomas Thüm, Reimar Schröter, Fabian Benduhn, Thomas Leich, and Gunter Saake. 2017. Mastering Software Variability with FeatureIDE. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Marcílio Mendonça. 2009. Efficient Reasoning Techniques for Large Scale Feature Models. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Waterloo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Marcílio Mendonça, Andrzej Wąsowski, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. 2009. SAT-Based Analysis of Feature Models is Easy. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). Software Engineering Institute, 231--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Sarah Nadi, Thorsten Berger, Christian Kästner, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. 2015. Where Do Configuration Constraints Stem From? An Extraction Approach and an Empirical Study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE) 41, 8 (2015), 820--841.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Michael Nieke, Jacopo Mauro, Christoph Seidl, Thomas Thüm, Ingrid Chieh Yu, and Felix Franzke. 2018. Anomaly Analyses for Feature-Model Evolution. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering(GPCE). ACM, 188--201. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Jeho Oh, Don Batory, Margaret Myers, and Norbert Siegmund. 2017. Finding near-optimal configurations in product lines by random sampling. In Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 61--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Juliana Alves Pereira, Sebastian Krieter, Jens Meinicke, Reimar Schröter, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. 2016. FeatureIDE: Scalable Product Configuration of Variable Systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Reuse (ICSR). Springer, 397--401. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Juliana Alves Pereira, Pawel Matuszyk, Sebastian Krieter, Myra Spiliopoulou, and Gunter Saake. 2018. Personalized recommender systems for product-line configuration processes. Computer Languages, Systems & Structures 54 (2018), 451--471.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Quentin Plazar, Mathieu Acher, Gilles Perrouin, Xavier Devroey, and Maxime Cordy. 2019. Uniform Sampling of SAT Solutions for Configurable Systems: Are We There Yet?. In IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Validation and Verification (ICST). 240--251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Sebastian Ruland, Lars Luthmann, Johannes Bürdek, Sascha Lity, Thomas Thüm, Malte Lochau, and Márcio Ribeiro. 2018. Measuring Effectiveness of Sample-Based Product-Line Testing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering (GPCE). ACM, 119--133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Thomas Thüm, Christian Kästner, Fabian Benduhn, Jens Meinicke, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. 2014. FeatureIDE: An Extensible Framework for Feature-Oriented Software Development. Science of Computer Programming (SCP) 79, 0 (2014), 70--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Mahsa Varshosaz, Mustafa Al-Hajjaji, Thomas Thüm, Tobias Runge, Mohammad Reza Mousavi, and Ina Schaefer. 2018. A Classification of Product Sampling for Software Product Lines. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). ACM, 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Enabling Efficient Automated Configuration Generation and Management

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      SPLC '19: Proceedings of the 23rd International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume B
      September 2019
      252 pages
      ISBN:9781450366687
      DOI:10.1145/3307630

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 9 September 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate167of463submissions,36%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader