Model Interchange Testing: a Process and a Case Study IBM Canada Ltd. Carleton University Ottawa, Canada Maged Elaasar, Yvan Labiche ECMFA 2012, Copenhagen,

Model Interchange Testing: a Process and a Case Study

IBM Canada Ltd.

Carleton University

Ottawa, Canada

Maged Elaasar, Yvan LabicheECMFA 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark

2

Motivation

Modeling tool A

Modeling tool B

export import

Model interchange

Issues due to:– Ambiguities in modeling standards

– Ambiguities in interchange standard

– Lack of verification of tool interchange capabilities

3

Outcome

OMG members (tool vendors and users) formed a Model

Interchange Working Group (MIWG)

Objective: to test and improve model interchange between

tools.

This presentation:– report on the activities of the MIWG

– a verification testing process

– case study: interchange of UML and SysML models

4

Verification testing process

Process: defining and executing model interchange test cases

– Test case: testing an “area” of a modeling language. Large area: e.g., UML Sequence Diagrams Small area: e.g., specific types of Actions in UML Activity

Diagrams

– Execution: 1. defining a reference model

2. exporting it from one tool

3. importing the result into another tool.

5

Verification testing process (cont.)

4 roles: can be played by one or more parties• MIWG: defines test cases• Producer: creates and exports model• Consumer: imports and compares model• Implementer: resolves issues

MIWG:• Defines test cases:

• To cover areas of modeling language that are deemed important tools should be able to interchange

• Experts a small exemplary reference model (image)• Experts creates corresponding XMI file• Tools generated + editing

Test oracle

Producer (each one, for each test case):• Manually re-creates model (from reference model image)• Exports the model as XMI• Exports diagram(s) as image(s)• Compares exported XMI with reference one

Consumer (each other one, for each produced XMI):• Imports XMI model• Manually re-creates diagram(s)• Exports diagram(s) as image(s) for comparison purposes• Exports model as XMI for comparison purposes (optional)

Implementer: resolves issues• MIWG: e.g., issue when specifying and creating a test case• Revision Task Force: e.g., identified ambiguity in standard• Producer: e.g., tool does not support modeling feature, difference

between exported model and reference model• Consumer: e.g., tool does not import specific feature, difference

between re-created diagram(s) and reference model

6

Issue of scalability

Assuming– N tools

– T test case specifications (i.e., reference models)

The process involves – N exports for each of the T test cases,

– followed by N-1 imports for each export.

– Linear scalability of [T.N] on export,

– Polynomial scalability of [T.N.(N-1)] on import Import is partly manual: re-creating diagram(s)

Plus:

– Standards evolve

– Tools evolve

– Test suite can be revised, extended

Hinders scalability

7

Verification testing process (revised)

The MIWG agreed that:validating the exported models by comparing them to the reference

models+ testing the import of the reference models should be sufficient.

Automated XMI file validation (compliance to standards) and comparisons with reference model

8

Case Study

Modeling languages selected: UML, SysML

– Market pressure, popularity

Test suite:

– 16 test cases (3/4 for UML)

– 59% of UML metaclasses

– 55% of SysML stereotypes

Six tools

9

Case Study

Execution

– 30 months

– 1st phase (initial process): 21 months

96 (16x6) exports and 480 (16x6x5) imports

Re-exports/re-imports necessary as standards, test cases and/or tools were being revised

– 2nd phase (revised process): 9 months

192 (16x2x6) imports

10

Case Study--Results

1st phase

– helped uncover major issues tools’ support of the UML metamodel and SysML profile

which hindered the successful interchange of models.

– Showed tools export extra information, or non-standard information

Not always expected during import

MIWG proposed that tools use the XMI:exporter tag to specify their tool name during export

Such that import can be customized

– Showed tools do not offer consistent support for standards E.g., default values for multiplicity of UML typed elements

11

Case Study--Results (cont.)

2nd phase

– issues/bugs reported by tools for each test case for their first (dashed line) export

for their last (solid line) export

(test case exports 3-4 times on average due to bug fixes)

– Overall improvement– Some remaining issues mainly due to ambiguities in standards

12

Conclusions

MIWG has defined and validated a rigorous incremental model interchange testing process

Process used in a case study to assess UML and SysML model interchange between six tools

Tools’ conformance to the standards increased by 20%

Extending test suite to remaining parts of UML metamodel and SysML profile

Applying process to other modeling languages

13

Questions?