Dynamically discovering likely interface invariants

ABSTRACT

Dynamic invariant detection is an approach that has received considerable attention in the recent research literature. A natural question arises in languages that separate the interface of a code module from its implementation: does an inferred invariant describe the interface or the implementation? Furthermore, if an implementation is allowed to refine another, as, for instance, in object-oriented method overriding, what is the relation between the inferred invariants of the overriding and the overridden method? The problem is of great practical interest. Invariants derived by real tools, like Daikon, often suffer from internal inconsistencies when overriding is taken into account, becoming unsuitable for some automated uses. We discuss the interactions between overriding and inferred invariants, and describe the implementation of an invariant inference tool that produces consistent invariants for interfaces and overridden methods.

REFERENCES

• 1: Apache Software Foundation. Bytecode engineering library (BCEL). http://jakarta.apache.org/bcel/, Apr. 2003. Accessed Feb. 2006.
• 2: D. R. Cok and J. R. Kiniry. ESC/Java2: Uniting ESC/Java and JML: Progress and issues in building and using ESC/Java2. Technical Report NIII-R0413, Nijmegen Institute for Computing and Information Science, May 2004.
• 3: Michael D. Ernst , Jake Cockrell , William G. Griswold , David Notkin, Dynamically Discovering Likely Program Invariants to Support Program Evolution, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.27 n.2, p.99-123, February 2001 [doi>10.1109/32.908957]
• 4: Sudheendra Hangal , Monica S. Lam, Tracking down software bugs using automatic anomaly detection, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 19-25, 2002, Orlando, Florida [doi>10.1145/581339.581377]
• 5: G. T. Leavens, A. L. Baker, and C. Ruby. Preliminary design of JML: A behavioral interface specification language for Java. Technical Report TR98-06y, Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, June 1998.
• 6: Bertrand Meyer, Object-oriented software construction (2nd ed.), Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997
• 7: C. Pacheco and M. D. Ernst. Eclat: Automatic generation and classification of test inputs. In Proc. 19th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, pages 504--527, July 2005.
• 8: Jeff H. Perkins , Michael D. Ernst, Efficient incremental algorithms for dynamic detection of likely invariants, Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGSOFT twelfth international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, October 31-November 06, 2004, Newport Beach, CA, USA
• 9: T. Xie and D. Notkin. Tool-assisted unit test selection based on operational violations. In Proc. 18th Annual International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2003), pages 40--48, Oct. 2003.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.7 Distribution, Maintenance, and Enhancement
          Subjects: Restructuring, reverse engineering, and reengineering

Additional Classification:
  F. Theory of Computation
  F.3 LOGICS AND MEANINGS OF PROGRAMS
      F.3.1 Specifying and Verifying and Reasoning about Programs
          Subjects: Pre- and post-conditions

General Terms:
Algorithms, Documentation, Languages

Keywords:
dynamic analysis, interfaces, invariant detection, method overriding