Model-Based Inspections of Software Product Lines

1. Alshazly, A.A., Elfatatry, A.M., Abougabal, M.S.: Detecting defects in software requirements specification. Alexandria Eng. J. 53(3), 513–527 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2014.06.001

   Article  Google Scholar 

2. Basili, V.R., Green, S., Laitenberger, O., Lanubile, F., Shull, F., Sørumgård, S., Zelkowitz, M.V.: The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. Empirical Softw. Eng. 1(2), 133–164 (1996)

   Article  Google Scholar 

3. Bettin, G.C.S., Geraldi, R.T., OliveiraJr, E.: Experimental evaluation of the SMartyCheck techinique for inspecting defects in UML component diagrams. In: Proceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality, pp. 101–110. ACM Press (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3275245.3275256

4. Bettin, G.C.S., OliveiraJr, E.: SMartyPerspective: a perspective-based inspection technique for software product lines. In: Proceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, pp. 90–94. ACM Press (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3474624.3474626

5. Biffl, S., Halling, M.: Investigating the defect detection effectiveness and cost benefit of nominal inspection teams. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29(5), 385–397 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2003.1199069

   Article  Google Scholar 

6. Ciolkowski, M., Differding, C., Laitenberger, O., Münch, J.: Empirical investigation of perspective-based reading: a replicated experiment. Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering (1997)

   Google Scholar 

7. Corbin, J.M., Strauss, A.L.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publishing (2008)

   Google Scholar 

8. Creswell, J.W., Clark, V.L.P.: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage Publishing (2010)

   Google Scholar 

9. Cunha, R., Conte, T., de Almeida, E.S., Maldonado, J.C.: A Set of inspection techniques on software product line models. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 657–662 (2012)

   Google Scholar 

10. Fagan, M.: Advances in software inspections. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 12(1), 744–751 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.1986.6312976

    Article  Google Scholar 

11. Fagan, M.: Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. In: Software Pioneers, 575–607, Springer, Berlin (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59412-0_35

12. Geraldi, R.T.: SMartyCheck: a checklist-based inspection technique for use case and class diagrams of SMarty approach. Master Dissertation, State University of Maringá (2015). http://repositorio.uem.br:8080/jspui/handle/1/2558

    Google Scholar 

13. Geraldi, R.T., OliveiraJr, E., Conte, T., Steinmacher, I.: Checklist-based inspection of SMarty variability models—proposal and empirical feasibility study. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pp. 268–276. Scitepress (2015). https://doi.org/10.5220/0005350102680276

14. Geraldi, R.T., OliveiraJr, E.: Defect types and software inspection techniques: a systematic mapping study. J. Comput. Sci. 13(10), 470–495 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2017.470.495

    Article  Google Scholar 

15. Geraldi, R.T., OliveiraJr, E.: Towards initial evidence of SMartyCheck for defect detection on product-line use case and class diagrams. J. Softw. 12(5), 379–392 (2017). https://doi.org/10.17706/jsw.12.5.379--392

    Article  Google Scholar 

16. Halling, M., Biffl, S., Grechenig, T., Kohle, M.: Using reading techniques to focus inspection performance. In: Proceedings 27th EUROMICRO Conference: A Net Odyssey, pp. 248–257. IEEE, Piscataway (2001). https://doi.org/10.1109/EURMIC.2001.952461

17. Hayes, J., Raphael, I., Holbrook, E., Pruett, D.: A case history of International Space Station requirement faults. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, p. 10. IEEE Computer Society (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECCS.2006.1690351

18. Höhn, E.: Técnicas de leitura de especificação de requisitos de software: estudos empíricos e gerência de conhecimento em ambientes acadêmico e industrial. Master Dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo (2003)

    Google Scholar 

19. IEEE: Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications, Standard 830–1998 (1998). http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/830-1998.html

20. IEEE: Software Reviews, Standard 1028–1997 (1998). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=663254

21. IEEE: System and Software Verification and Validation, Standard 1012–2012 (2012). https://standards.ieee.org/standard/1012-2012.html

22. Laitenberger, O, Atkinson, C.: Generalizing perspective-based inspection to handle object-oriented development artifacts. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 494–503. ACM Press (1999). https://doi.org/10.1145/302405.302680

23. Laitenberger, O.: Cost-effective detection of software defects through perspective-based inspections. Empirical Softw. Eng. 6, 81–84 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009805707387

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

24. Laitenberger, O., Kohler, K.: The systematic adaptation of perspective-based inspections to software development projects. In: 1st Workshop on Inspection in Software Engineering, McMaster University, pp. 105–114 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

25. Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, London (2009)

    Google Scholar 

26. Lanubile, F., Mallardo, T., Calefato, F., Denger, C., Ciolkowski, M.: Assessing the impact of active guidance for defect detection: a replicated experiment. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, pp. 269–278. IEEE, Piscataway (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/METRIC.2004.1357909

27. Linden, F.J., Schmid, K., Rommes, E.: Software Product Lines in Action: The Best Industrial Practice in Product Line Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

28. Mirsky, S., Hayes, J., Miller, L.: Guidelines for the verification and validation of expert system software and conventional software. Technical report (1995). https://doi.org/10.2172/42512

29. Oladele, R., Adedayo, H.: On empirical comparison of checklist-based reading and adhoc reading for code inspection. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 87(1) (2014). https://doi.org/10.5120/15174--3251

30. Pohl, K., Böckle, G., Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

31. Porter, A., Votta, L.G., Basili, V.R.: Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: a replicated experiment. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21(6), 563–575 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1109/32.391380

    Article  Google Scholar 

32. Rombach, D., Ciolkowski, M., Jeffery, R., Laitenberger, O., McGarry, F., Shull, F.: Impact of research on practice in the field of inspections, reviews and walkthroughs: learning from successful industrial uses. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 33(6), 26–35 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1449603.1449609

    Article  Google Scholar 

33. Sabaliauskaite, G., Matsukawa, F., Kusumoto, S., Inoue, K.: Further investigations of reading techniques for object-oriented design inspection. Inform. Softw. Technol. 45(9), 571–585 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5849(03)00044-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

34. Shull, F., Rus, I., Basili, V.: How perspective-based reading can improve requirements inspections. Computer 33(7), 73–79 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1109/2.869376

    Article  Google Scholar 

35. Silva, L.F., OliveiraJr, E.: SMartyModeling: an environment for engineering UML-based software product lines. In: 15th International Working Conference on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems, pp. 1–5. ACM, New York (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442391.3442397

36. Souza, I.S., da Silva Gomes, G.S., da Mota Silveira Neto, P.A., do Carmo Machado, I., de Almeida, E.S., de Lemos Meira, S.R.: Evidence of software inspection on feature specification for software product lines. J. Syst. Softw. 86(5), 1172–1190 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.11.044

37. Taroda, M.H., OliveiraJr, E., Geraldi, R.T.: SMartyCheckTool: uma Ferramenta para Detecção e Remoção de Defeitos em Modelos SMarty de Linhas de Produto de Software. In: XXVI Encontro Anual de Iniciação Científica, pp. 1–4. State University of Maringá (2017)

    Google Scholar 

38. Travassos, G., Shull, F., Fredericks, M., Basili, V.R.: Detecting defects in object-oriented designs: using reading techniques to increase software quality. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 47–56. ACM Press, New York (1999). https://doi.org/10.1145/320384.320389

39. Travassos, G. H.: Software defects: stay away from them. do inspections! In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 1–7. IEEE, Piscataway (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/QUATIC.2014.8

40. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2012)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

41. Zhu, Y.: Software Reading Techniques: Twenty Techniques for More Effective Software Review and Inspection. Apress (2016)

    Google Scholar 

Download references