Skip to content
Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag October 17, 2018

Towards verified continuous integration in the engineering of automated production systems

Ein Ansatz zur verifizierten kontinuierlichen Integration für das Engineering automatisierter Produktionssysteme
Jakob Mund, Safa Bougouffa, Iman Badr and Birgit Vogel-Heuser

Abstract

Continuous integration (CI) is widely used in software engineering. The observed benefits include reduced efforts for system integration, which is particularly appealing for engineering automated production systems (aPS) due to the different disciplines involved. Yet, while many individual quality assurance means for aPS have been proposed, their adequacy for and systematic use in CI remains unclear. In this article, the authors provide two key contributions: First, a quality model for a model-based engineering approach specifically developed for aPS. Based thereon, a discussion of the suitable verification techniques for aPS and their systematic integration in a CI process are given. As a result, the paper provide a blueprint to be further studied in practice, and a research agenda for quality assurance of aPS.

Zusammenfassung

Kontinuierliche Integration (Continuous Integration, CI) ist in der Softwareentwicklung weit verbreitet. Einer der offensichtlichen Vorteile von CI ist ein verringerter Aufwand zur Systemintegration. Dies ist besonders in der Entwicklung von automatisierten Produktionssystemen (aPS) interessant, da diese viele verschiedene Disziplinen vereint. Obwohl bereits viele individuelle Vorschläge für Qualitätssicherungsmittel für aPS existieren, ist deren Eignung und systematischer Einsatz in CI jedoch noch unklar. In diesem Artikel liefern die Autoren daher zwei wesentliche Beiträge: Zuerst wird ein Qualitätsmodell für einen modellbasierten Entwicklungsansatz, der speziell für aPS entwickelt wurde, vorgestellt. Darauf aufbauend werden geeignete Verifikationstechniken für aPS sowie deren systematische Integration in einen CI Prozess diskutiert. Als Ergebnis liefert dieser Beitrag eine Vorlage für CI für aPS, die in der Praxis noch weiter erforscht und evaluiert werden muss sowie einen Forschungsplan für die Qualitätssicherung von aPS.

Funding source: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Award Identifier / Grant number: SPP1593

Funding statement: This work was supported by the DFG (German Research Foundation) under the Priority Programme SPP1593: Design for Future – Managed Software Evolution (VO937/13-1).

References

1. M. Fowler and M. Foemmel, “Continuous integration,” Thought-Works, vol. 122, 2006. http://www.thoughtworks.com/Continuous.Integration.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

2. M. Meyer, “Continuous integration and its tools,” IEEE software, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 14–16, 2014.10.1109/MS.2014.58Search in Google Scholar

3. A. Miller, “A hundred days of continuous integration,” in Agile, 2008. AGILE’08. Conference, pp. 289–293, IEEE, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

4. D. Ståhl and J. Bosch, “Experienced benefits of continuous integration in industry software product development: A case study,” in The 12th iasted international conference on software engineering, (Innsbruck, Austria, 2013), pp. 736–743, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

5. B. Vasilescu, Y. Yu, H. Wang, P. Devanbu and V. Filkov, “Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integration in GitHub,” in Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 805–816, ACM, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

6. D. Ståhl and J. Bosch, “Modeling continuous integration practice differences in industry software development,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 87. pp. 48–59, 2014.10.1016/j.jss.2013.08.032Search in Google Scholar

7. G. Karsai and J. Sztipanovits, “Model-integrated development of cyber-physical systems,” Software Technologies for Embedded and Ubiquitous Systems pp. 46–54, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

8. D. Winkler and S. Biffl, Improving quality assurance in automation systems development projects, Quality Assurance and Management, InTech, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

9. B. Vogel-Heuser, A. Fay, I. Schaefer and M. Tichy, “Evolution of software in automated production systems: Challenges and research directions,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 110, no. Supplement C, pp. 54–84, 2015.10.1016/j.jss.2015.08.026Search in Google Scholar

10. B. Vogel-Heuser, Testen in der Automatisierungstechnik vom Gerät bis zur Anlage. Sierke Verlag, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

11. M. Karlesky, G. Williams, W. Bereza and M. Fletcher, “Mocking the embedded world: Test-driven development, continuous integration, and design patterns,” in Proc. Emb. Systems Conf, CA, USA, pp. 1518–1532, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

12. C. G. Lee and S. C. Park, “Survey on the virtual commissioning of manufacturing systems,” Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 213–222, 2014.10.7315/JCDE.2014.021Search in Google Scholar

13. G. Nicolescu and P. J. Mosterman, Model-based design for embedded systems. CRC Press, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

14. H. Giese, G. Karsai, E. A. Lee, B. Rumpe and B. Schätz, Model-Based Engineering of Embedded Real-Time Systems: International Dagstuhl Workshop, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, November 4–9, 2007. Revised Selected Papers, vol. 6100. Springer, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

15. P. Liggesmeyer and M. Trapp, “Trends in embedded software engineering,” IEEE software, vol. 26, no. 3, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

16. K. Thramboulidis and G. Frey, “Towards a model-driven IEC 61131-based development process in industrial automation,” Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, vol. 4, no. 04, p. 217, 2011.10.4236/jsea.2011.44024Search in Google Scholar

17. C. Legat, J. Mund, A. Campetelli, G. Hackenberg, J. Folmer, D. Schütz, M. Broy and B. Vogel-Heuser, “Interface behavior modeling for automatic verification of industrial automation systems’ functional conformance,” at-Automatisierungstechnik, vol. 62 no. 11, pp. 815–825, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

18. M. Broy and K. Stølen, Specification and development of interactive systems: focus on streams, interfaces, and refinement. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

19. B. De Schutter, W. Heemels, J. Lunze, C. Prieur et al., “Survey of modeling, analysis, and control of hybrid systems,” Handbook of Hybrid Systems Control–Theory, Tools, Applications, pp. 31–55, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

20. A. Campetelli, “Dynamic Sampling for FOCUS Hybrid Components,” International Journal of Modeling and Optimization, vol. 3, no. 5, p. 402, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

21. B. Vogel-Heuser, J. Folmer, T. Aicher, J. Mund and S. Rehberger, “Coupling simulation and model checking to examine selected mechanical constraints of automated production systems,” in Industrial Informatics (INDIN), 2015 IEEE 13th International Conference on, pp. 37–42, IEEE, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

22. ISO/IEC 9126-1, Software engineering – Product quality – Part 1: Quality model. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2001.Search in Google Scholar

23. O. I. Lindland, G. Sindre and A. Solvberg, “Understanding quality in conceptual modeling,” IEEE software, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 42–49, 1994.10.1109/52.268955Search in Google Scholar

24. B. Unhelkar, Verification and validation for quality of UML 2.0 models, vol. 42. John Wiley & Sons, 2005.Search in Google Scholar

25. P. Mohagheghi, V. Dehlen and T. Neple, “Definitions and approaches to model quality in model-based software development – A review of literature,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 1646–1669, 2009. Quality of {UML} Models.10.1016/j.infsof.2009.04.004Search in Google Scholar

26. V. Aravantinos, S. Voss, S. Teufl, F. Hölzl and B. Schätz, “AutoFOCUS 3: Tooling Concepts for Seamless, Model-based Development of Embedded Systems,” in ACES-MB&WUCOR@ MoDELS, pp. 19–26, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

27. M. Young, Software testing and analysis: process, principles, and techniques. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

28. J. M. Georg Hackenberg, Cyber-physical manufacturing system Development: A test-driven design method and exploratory case study, Tech. Rep. TUM-I1664, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

29. S. Rösch, S. Teufl and B. Vogel-Heuser, “Model-based quality assurance in machine and plant automation using sequence diagrams - A comparison of two research approaches,” in Industrial Informatics (INDIN), 2015 IEEE 13th International Conference on, pp. 302–307, IEEE, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

30. G. Hackenberg, A. Campetelli, C. Legat, J. Mund, S. Teufl and B. Vogel-Heuser, “Formal technical process specification and verification for automated production systems,” in International Conference on System Analysis and Modeling, pp. 287–303, Springer, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

31. J. Mund, M. Junker, S. Bougouffa, S. Cha and B. Vogel-Heuser, “Model-based Availability Analysis for Automated Production Systems: A Case Study,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM-IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for System Design, MEMOCODE ’17 (New York, NY, USA), pp. 46–55, ACM, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

32. K. Beck, Test-driven development: by example. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-12-05
Accepted: 2018-08-30
Published Online: 2018-10-17
Published in Print: 2018-10-25

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston