1 / 36

Specification and Reasoning in SE Projects Using a Web IDE

Specification and Reasoning in SE Projects Using a Web IDE. Charles T. Cook (Clemson) Svetlana V. Drachova-Strang (Limestone College) Yu-Shan Sun (Clemson) Murali Sitaraman (Clemson) Jeffrey C. Carver (Alabama) Joseph E. Hollingsworth (IU Southeast)

inez
Télécharger la présentation

Specification and Reasoning in SE Projects Using a Web IDE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Specification and Reasoning in SE Projects Using a Web IDE Charles T. Cook (Clemson) Svetlana V. Drachova-Strang (Limestone College) Yu-Shan Sun (Clemson) Murali Sitaraman (Clemson) Jeffrey C. Carver (Alabama) Joseph E. Hollingsworth (IU Southeast) This research is funded in part by NSF grants CCF-0811748, CCF-1161916, DUE-1022191, and DUE-1022941.

  2. Part I: Overview

  3. About Clemson • School of Computing has about 600 undergrads and 200 grads • Clemson University has 17,000 students • Located in a town (also Clemson) with an official population of about 13,000 in South Carolina • Has a football stadium with capacity 85,000

  4. This talk • This talk is about undergrad courses, though the ideas have been used in both undergrad and grad courses for many years

  5. Goals of the SE Projects • Role of formal specifications as contracts in team software development and integration • Role of formal specifications in reasoning about software correctness • Other uses • Specification-based test case design

  6. Intro. and Advanced Projects • Introductory projects involve only use of and reasoning with existing library components • 2 weeks of lectures • Advanced projects involve development and reasoning about new components • 3-5 weeks of lectures • Other variations

  7. Sample Courses and Institutions • Sample introductory projects • Alabama (Software Engineering) • Cleveland State (Software Engineering) • Sample advanced projects • Clemson (Software Engineering) • Denison (Independent study projects) • Other variations • Depauw (Theory), NC State (Data structures), Southern Wesleyan (Data Structures), Ramapo College (Programming Languages),…

  8. Clemson University Details • Two-course sequence • Sophomore-Level, CP SC 215: Software Development Foundations • Junior/Senior-Level: CP SC 372: Software Engineering • Experimentation and assessment • Piloting (2007/2008) • Institutionalization (2009 to present)

  9. Soft. Dev. Foundations Course • Intro to Java, object-based computing, software engineering, design patterns, etc. • 10 weeks (includes usual materials and projects) • Intro to formal specifications and reasoning (interspersed with above topics) • 4 weeks • Uses RESOLVE-style specifications in a Java context

  10. Software Engineering Course • Software life cycle, process models, requirements analysis and design • 8 weeks (includes usual materials and projects) • Transition from informal to formal • 1 week • Specification-based component development and quality assurance • 5 weeks • Uses RESOLVE

  11. Clemson University Key Points • Specification/reasoning included in syllabi for two required courses for majors (2009) • Graduating student learning outcome modified to include “development of bug-free software according to specifications” (2012)

  12. Part II: Example Projects

  13. RESOLVE • An integrated specification and programming language for verified, component-based software development • A Verifying compiler • A github project • A freely-available web interface to use the verifying compiler: www.cs.clemson.edu/group/resolve

  14. Sample Intro Assignments • Generate VCs and prove the given Queue Remove_Last operation. • Make each of the following changes and explain what is unprovable. • Comment out the first Dequeue operation. • Change the maintaining clause (loop invariant) to #Q = <E> o Q. • Change the decreasing clause (termination progress metric) to |T|.

  15. Sample Advanced Assignments • Implement and verify: • Extension operations on Queues to Insert_After and Remove_After • Sequence_Template using Queue_Template with extensions • Multiple implementations of Queue_Template satisfying given internal contracts • Assignments to put it all together • Involve a dozen components and teams of 3 students

  16. Sample Components • Stack_Template • Queue_Template • Preemptable_Queue_Template • Sequence_Template • List_Template • Search_Store_Template • Map_Template • Prioritizer_Template • …

  17. Part III: A Web IDE Demo

  18. Getting Started • www.cs.clemson.edu/group/resolve • Tab: Web IDE • Google: • RESOLVE web IDE • RESOLVE verifier • Clemson RESOLVE

  19. Sample Intro Assignments • Generate VCs and prove the given Queue Remove_Last operation. • Make each of the following changes and explain what is unprovable. • Comment out the first Dequeue operation. • Change the maintaining clause (loop invariant) to #Q = <E> o Q. • Change the decreasing clause (termination progress metric) to |T|.

  20. Elements of the Assignment • Queue_Template concept specification • A specification of Remove_Last Operation • An annotated implementation of Remove_Last operation

  21. Mathematical Modeling • Concepts provide mathematical models for programming objects • To write formal specifications, we need to model the state mathematically • Some objects we use in programming, such as Integers and Reals, have implicit models • For others, such as stacks, queues, lists, etc., we need to conceive explicit mathematical models

  22. Mathematical Modeling of Queues Concept Queue_Template(type Entry; Max_Length: Integer); uses String_Theory; Type Family Queue is modeled by … Operation Enqueue… Operation Dequeue… … end Queue_Template;

  23. Concept Queue_Template(type Entry; Max_Length: Integer); uses String_Theory; Type Family Queue is modeled by Str(Entry); exemplar Q; constraints |Q| <= Max_Length; initialization ensures Q = ; … end Queue_Template; Mathematical Modeling of Queues

  24. Operation Remove_Last (updates Q: Queue; replaces E: Entry); requires |Q| /= 0; ensures #Q = Q o <E>; A Specification of Remove_Last

  25. Procedure Remove_Last (updates Q: Queue; replaces E: Entry); Var T: Queue; Dequeue (E, Q); While (Length(Q) /= 0) do Enqueue(E,T); Dequeue(E,Q); end; Q :=: T; end Remove_Last; An Implementation of Remove_Last

  26. Assume #Q = <10, 20, 30, 40> Dequeue (E, Q); While (Length(Q) /= 0) T E Q Iter. 1  10 <20, 30, 40> Iter. 2 <10> 20 <30, 40> Iter. 3 <10, 20> 30 <40> Iter. 4 <10, 20, 30> 40  do Enqueue(E,T); Dequeue(E,Q); end; Understanding Loop Invariant

  27. Assume #Q = <10, 20, 30, 40> Dequeue (E, Q); While (Length(Q) /= 0) T E Q Iter. 1  10 <20, 30, 40> Iter. 2 <10> 20 <30, 40> Iter. 3 <10, 20> 30 <40> Iter. 4 <10, 20, 30> 40  Loop maintains this invariant: #Q = T o <E> o Q Understanding Loop Invariant

  28. Procedure Remove_Last (updates Q: Queue; replaces E: Entry); Var T: Queue; Dequeue (E, Q); While (Length(Q) /= 0) maintaining #Q = T o <E> o Q; decreasing |Q|; do Enqueue(E,T); Dequeue(E,Q); end; … An Implementation of Remove_Last

  29. Verification • Press Verify Button • Generate and prove automatically a series of verification conditions (VCs) • Students understand why the VCs arise • Understand connections between contracts, code, and proofs • Can prove VCs

  30. Impact of Incorrect Code • The first statement, call to Dequeue, is removed. • Leads to one unprovable VC (Verification Condition) • VC 0_1: • Base Case of the Invariant of While Statement in Procedure Remove_Last: Remove_Last_Realiz.rb(8)  • Goal: Q = ((empty_string o <E>) o Q) • Givens: …

  31. Part IV: Assessment

  32. Assessment Summary • For details • See the paper • See Drachova Ph. D. dissertation (2013, Clemson), available at website • A quick summary • Likert items to assess perceived benefits of web IDE (avg. 4.0/5.0) • Project grades (avg. from 80%); about the same as non-formal parts • RCI-item based analysis

  33. What reasoning skills are necessary?Reasoning Concept Inventory http://www.cs.clemson.edu/resolve/teaching/inventory.html

  34. Clemson RCI-Based Evaluation • 3.4.3: Precise specifications • 4.2: Design by contract • 4.3.1: Internal contracts

  35. SE Project Benefits on RCI-Based Learning Outcomes • RCI Topics: 3.4.2, 3.4.3: Precise specifications • Sample size: 24 students, Spring ‘12

  36. Summary • Students can practice formal specification and reasoning principles effectively using the RESOLVE web IDE and its verifier • There are some benefits for even a minimal intro (3 lectures plus project) • Significant benefits with longer-term exposure • IDE and materials online • www.cs.clemson.edu/group/resolve

More Related