Inconsistency Discovery in Multiple State Diagrams

Authors: Mohammad N. Alanazi, David A. Gustafson

Abstract:

In this article, we introduce a new approach for analyzing UML designs to detect the inconsistencies between multiple state diagrams and sequence diagrams. The Super State Analysis (SSA) identifies the inconsistencies in super states, single step transitions, and sequences. Because SSA considers multiple UML state diagrams, it discovers inconsistencies that cannot be discovered when considering only a single UML state diagram. We have introduced a transition set that captures relationship information that is not specifiable in UML diagrams. The SSA model uses the transition set to link transitions of multiple state diagrams together. The analysis generates three different sets automatically. These sets are compared to the provided sets to detect the inconsistencies. SSA identifies five types of inconsistencies: impossible super states, unreachable super states, illegal transitions, missing transitions, and illegal sequences.

Keywords: Modeling Languages, Object-Oriented Analysis, Sequence Diagrams, Software Models, State Diagrams, UML.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1330317

References:

[1] OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, UML 2.0, Object Management Group, 2006, http://www.uml.org.
[2] O. Pilskalns, A. Andrews, S. Ghosh, & R. France, Rigorous Testing by Merging Structural and Behavioral UML Representations, Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on UML, San Francisco, CA, 2003, 234-248.
[3] B. Litvak, S. Tyszberowics, & A.Yehudai, Behavioral Consistency Validation of UML Diagrams, Proc. 1st Int. Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, 2003, 118-125.
[4] A. Egyed, Scalable Consistency Checking between Diagrams-The ViewIntegra Approach, Proc. 16th Annual International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2001, 387-390.
[5] Y. Bontemps, P. Heymans, & P. Schobbens, From Live Sequence Charts to State Machines and Back: A Guided Tour, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(12), 2005, 999-1014.
[6] Y. Dumond, D. Girardet, & F. Oquendo, A relationship between sequence and statechart diagram, A Workshop, Proc. Dynamic Behaviour in UML Models: Semantic Questions, York, UK, 2000.
[7] W. Shen & W. Low, Consistency Checking Between Two Different Views Of a Software System, Proc. 10th IASTED Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Applications, Dallas, TX, 2006.
[8] H. Wang, T. Feng, J. Zhang, & K. Zhang, Consistency check between behaviour models, Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Communications and Information Technology, China, 2005, 486-489.
[9] R. Straeten , J. Simmonds & V. Jonckers, Maintaining Consistency between UML Models Using Description Logic, Journal S'erie L'objet - logiciel, base de donn'ees, r'eseaux, 10(2-3), 2004, 231-244.
[10] R. Wagner, H. Giese, & U. Nickel, A Plug-In for Flexible and Incremental Consistency Management, Proc. International Conference on the UML 2003, San Francisco, October 2003, 78-85.
[11] A. Egyed, Instant consistency checking for the UML, Proc. 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, China, 2006, 381- 390.
[12] H. Gomaa & D. Wijesekera, Consistency in Multiple-View UML Models: A Case Study, Proc. of Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development, 6th Int. Conf. on the UML, San Francisco, 2003.1-8.
[13] P. Krishnan, Consistency Checks for UML, Proc. 7th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Singapore, 2000, 162-169.
[14] S. Kim & D. Carrington, A Formal Object-Oriented Approach to defining Consistency Constraints for UML Models, Proc. of the 2004 Australian Software Engineering Conference Australia, 2004, 87-94.
[15] L. Kuzniarz & M. Staron, Inconsistencies in Student Designs, Proc. 2nd Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development, San Francisco, CA, 2003, 9-18.
[16] Z. Pap, I. Majzik, A. Pataricza, & A. Szegi, Completeness and Consistency Analysis of UML Statechart Specifications, Proc. IEEE Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits and Systems Workshop, Hungary, April, 2001, 83-90.