skip to main content
10.1145/3336294.3336317acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessplcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Using Relation Graphs for Improved Understanding of Feature Models in Software Product Lines

Published: 09 September 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Feature models are widely used for describing the variability of a software product line. A feature model contains a tree of features and a set of constraints over these features, which define valid feature combinations. In the industrial practice, large feature models containing hundreds of features and constraints are common. Furthermore, in a hierarchical product line a feature model can be related to other feature models through inter-model constraints. Due to the model size and complexity, understanding industrial feature models is a challenging task.
In this paper, we describe the feature model understanding challenges reported by feature model developers at Robert Bosch GmbH. To support the developers in model understanding, we extend the idea of a feature implication graph to feature relation graph by abstracting groups of implications to feature relations. A transitively closed relation graph shows all modeled and implicit feature relations and spans all related feature models. The graph is also used to identify modeling problems, such as false optional or dead features, and to show the derivation of any implicit relation or problem from the modeled constraints. In a case study at Bosch, we evaluate the use of feature relation graph for model understanding. We propose further use cases of the graph, supporting model maintenance, evolution and configuration.

References

[1]
M. Acher, P. Collet, A. Gaignard, P. Lahire, J. Montagnat, R. France. Composing Multiple Variability Artifacts to Assemble Coherent Workflows. 2012. In Software Quality Journal, Vol. 20, Issue 3--4, September 2012, pp.689--734.
[2]
D. Benavides, S. Segura, A. Ruiz-Cortes. Automatic Analysis of Feature Models 20 Years Later: A Literature Review. 2010. In Journal Information Systems, Vol. 35, Issue 6, September 2010.
[3]
T. Berger, R. Rublack, D. Nair, J.M. Atlee, M. Becker, K. Czarnecki, A. Wąsowski. A Survey of Variability Modeling in Industrial Practice. 2013. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS '13)
[4]
D. Beuche, R. Hellebrand. Using pure::variants Across the Product Line Lifecycle. 2015. In Proceedings of the 19<sup>th</sup> International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2015)
[5]
G. Botterweck, S. Thiel, D. Nestor, S. bin Abid, C. Cawley. Visual Tool Support for Configuring and Understanding Software Product Lines. 2008. In Proceedings of the 12<sup>th</sup> International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2008)
[6]
K. Czarnecki, A. Wąsowski. Feature Diagrams and Logic: There and Back Again. 2007. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2007), pp. 23--34
[7]
S. El-Sharkawy, S.J. Dhar, A. Krafczyk, S. Duszynski, T. Beichter, K. Schmid. Reverse Engineering Variability in an Industrial Product Line: Observations and Lessons Learned. 2018. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2018)
[8]
A. Jakšic, R. France, P. Collet, S. Ghosh. Evaluating the Usability of a Visual Feature Modeling Notation. 2014. In Proceedings of the 7<sup>th</sup> International Conference on Software Language Engineering (SLE 2014).
[9]
K. C. Kang, S. G. Cochen, J. A. Hess, W. E. Novak, A. S. Peterson. Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. 1990. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
[10]
A. Knüppel, T. Thüm, S. Mennicke, J. Meinicke, I. Schaefer. Is There a Mismatch between Real-World Feature Models and Product Line Research?. 2017. In Proceedings of ESEC/FSE'17
[11]
S. Krieter, T. Thüm, S. Schulze, R. Schröter, G. Saake. Propagating Configuration Decisions with Modal Implication Graphs. 2018. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2018)
[12]
F. van der Linden, K. Schmid, E. Rommes. Philips Medical Systems. In Software Product Lines in Action, Chapter 15, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2007
[13]
J. Martinez, T. Ziadi, R. Mazo, T. F. Bissyande, J. Klein, Y. Le Traon. Feature Relation Graphs: A Visualization Paradigm for Feature Constraints in Software Product Lines. 2014. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Software Visualization (VISSOFT 2014)
[14]
E. Nuutila. Efficient Transitive Closure Computation in Large Digraphs. 1995. PhD Thesis, Mathematics and Computing in Engineering Series No. 74, Finnish Academy of Technology.
[15]
R. Pohl, V. Stricker, K. Pohl. Measuring the Structural Complexity of Feature Models. 2013. In Proceedings of the Intl. Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2013)
[16]
pure-systems GmbH. pure::variants User's Guide. Version 4.0.17.685. 2019. Available at: https://www.pure-systems.com/fileadmin/downloads/pure-variants/doc/pv-user-manual.pdf (last accessed on 29 March 2019)
[17]
R. Rabiser, P. Grünbacher, D. Dhungana. Requirements for Product Derivation Support: Results from a Systematic Literature Review and an Expert Survey. 2010. Information and Software Technology, Vol. 52 Issue 3, March 2010
[18]
S. She, R. Lotufo, T. Berger, A. Wąsowski, K. Czarnecki. Reverse Engineering Feature Models. 2011. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2011), pp. 461--470
[19]
K. Sierszecki, M. Steffens, H. H. Hojrup, J. Savolainen, D. Beuche. Extending Variability Management to the Next Level. 2014. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2014)
[20]
M. Steger, C. Tischer, B. Boss, A. Müller, O. Pertler, W. Stolz, S. Ferber. Introducing PLA at Bosch Gasoline Systems: Experiences and Practices. 2004. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2004).
[21]
R. Tartler, D. Lohmann, J. Sincero, W. Schröder-Preikschat. Feature Consistency in Compile-Time-Configurable System Software. 2011. In Proceedings of EuroSys '11.
[22]
S. Urli, M. Blay-Fornarino, P. Collet. Handling Complex Configurations in Software Product Lines: a Tooled Approach. 2014. In Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'14), September 2014.
[23]
S. Urli, A. Bergel, M. Blay-Fornarino, P. Collet, S. Mosser. A Visual Support for Decomposing Complex Feature Models. 2015. In Proceedings of the 3rd Working Conference on Software Visualization (VISSOFT 2015), September 2015.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)In three steps to software product linesProceedings of the 26th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A10.1145/3546932.3547003(170-177)Online publication date: 12-Sep-2022

Index Terms

  1. Using Relation Graphs for Improved Understanding of Feature Models in Software Product Lines

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    SPLC '19: Proceedings of the 23rd International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A
    September 2019
    356 pages
    ISBN:9781450371384
    DOI:10.1145/3336294
    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: 09 September 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. feature model
    2. implication graph
    3. model understanding

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • BMBF (German Ministry of Research and Education)

    Conference

    SPLC 2019

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 167 of 463 submissions, 36%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)8
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
    Reflects downloads up to 06 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2022)In three steps to software product linesProceedings of the 26th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A10.1145/3546932.3547003(170-177)Online publication date: 12-Sep-2022

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media