Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A classification and systematic review of product line feature model defects

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Product line (PL)-based development is a thriving research area to develop software-intensive systems. Feature models (FMs) facilitate derivation of valid products from a PL by managing commonalities and variabilities among software products. However, the researchers in academia as well as in the industries experience difficulties in quality assessment of FMs. The increasing complexity and size of FMs may lead to defects, which outweigh the benefits of PL. This paper provides a systematic literature review and key research issues related to the FM defects in PL. We derive a typology of FM defects according to their level of importance. The information on defects’ identification and explanations are provided with formalization. Further, corrective explanations are presented which incorporates various techniques used to fix defects with their implementation. This information would help software engineering community by enabling developers or modelers to find the types of defects and their causes and to choose an appropriate technique to fix defects in order to produce defect-free products from FMs, thereby enhancing the overall quality of PL-based development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdelrahman O. Elfaki, Omar A. Abouabdalla, Sim L. Fong, Md G. M. Johar, Kevin L. T. Aik, Ruzi Bachok. 2012. Review and future directions of the automated validation in software product line engineering. J. Theor. Appl. Info. Technol. 42, 1 (Aug. 2012), 75–93.

  • Baader, F. (2003). The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation, and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmeyer, R. C., & Delugach, H. S. (2007). A conceptual graph approach to feature modeling. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Architectures for Smart Applications (ICCS '07), Uta Priss, Simon Polovina, and Richard Hill (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 179–191. DOI. In . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73681-3_14.

  • Batory, D. (2005). Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. In H. Obbink & K. Pohl (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Product Lines (SPLC '05) (pp. 7–20). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11554844_3.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Don Batory, David Benavides, and Antonio R. Cortés. 2006. Automated analysis of feature models: challenges ahead. Commun. ACM 49, 12 (Dec. 2006), 45–47. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1145/1183236.1183264

  • Benavides, D. (2007). On the automated analysis of software product lines using feature models. A Framework for Developing Automated Tool Support. PhD Dissertation: University of Seville, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • David Benavides, Pablo Trinidad, and Antonio R. Cortés. 2005a. Automated reasoning on feature models. In proceedings of the 17th International Conference Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’05), Oscar Pastor and João Falcão e Cunha (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3520. Springer, Berlin, 491-503. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/11431855_34.

  • David Benavides, Antonio R. Cortés, and Pablo Trinidad. 2005b. Using constraint programming to reason on feature models. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, (SEKE 2005). Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China, 677–682. DOI : 10.1.1.60.3888.

  • David Benavides, Sergio Segura, Pablo Trinidad, and Antonio R. Cortés. 2006a. Using java CSP solvers in the automated analyses of feature models. In Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4143. Springer, Berlin, 399-408. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/11877028_16

  • David Benavides, Sergio Segura, Pablo Trinidad, and Antonio R. Cortés. 2006b. A first step towards a framework for the automated analysis of feature models. In Proceedings of Managing Variability for Software Product Lines: Working With Variability Mechanisms. Baltimore, 39-47.

  • Benavides, D., Segura, S., Trinidad, P., & Cortés, A. R. (2007). FAMA: Tooling a framework for the automated analysis of feature models. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VAMOS’07) (pp. 129–134). Ireland: Limerick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benavides, D., Segura, S., & Cortés, A. R. (2010). Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review. Info. Syst., 35(6 (Sep. 2010)), 615–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2010.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borning, A., Freeman-Benson, B., & Wilson, M. (1992). Constraint hierarchies. LISP and symbolic computation, 5, 3(Sept. 1992), 123–270 DOI : 10.1.1.31.9249.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Quentin Boucher, Andreas Classen, Paul Faber, and Patrick Heymans. 2010. Introducing TVL, a text-based feature modelling language. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS’10). University of Duisburg-Essen, Linz, Austria, 27-29.

  • Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J. Syst. Softw., 80(4 (April 2007)), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fei Cao, Barrett R. Bryant, Carol C. Burt, Zhisheng Huang, Rajeev R. Raje, Andrew M. Olson, and Mikhail Auguston. 2003. Automating feature-oriented domain analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP’03), B. Al-Ani, H.R. Arabnia, Y. Mun (Eds.). Press, Las Vegas, 944–949.

  • Andreas Classen, Quentin Boucher, and Patrick Heymans. 2011. A text-based approach to feature modelling: Syntax and semantics of TVL. Sci. Comput. Program. 76, 12 (Dec. 2011), 1130–1143. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2010. 10.005.

  • Clements, P., & Northrop, L. (2001). Software product lines: Practices and patterns. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnecki, K., & Antkiewicz, M. (2005). Mapping features to models: A template approach based on superimposed variants. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering (GPCE '05) (pp. 422–437). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/11561347_28.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnecki, K., & Eisenecker, U. W. (2000). Generative programming: Methods, tools, and applications. New York: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Krzysztof Czarnecki and Chang H. P. Kim. 2005. Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: A progress report. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Software Factories at OOPSLA’05. San Diego, California, USA, 1–9. DOI : 10.1.1.128.6904.

  • Czarnecki, K., & Wasowski, A. (2007). Feature diagrams and logics: There and back again. In Proceedings of the 11th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC '07). IEEE computer society, Washington, DC, USA, 23-34. DOI. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPLC.2007.19.

  • Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., & Eisenecker, U. (2005). Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Softw. Process: Improve. Pract, 10(1 (Jan. 2005)), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/spip.213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krzysztof Czarnecki, Steven She, and Andrzej Wasowski. 2008. Sample spaces and feature models: There and back again. 2008. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). IEEE, 22–31.

  • Dhungana, D., Grünbacher, P., & Rabiser, R. (2011). The DOPLER meta-tool for decision-oriented variability modeling: a multiple case study. Automated Software Engg, 18(1 (March 2011)), 77–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-010-0076-6.

  • Olfa Djebbi, Camille Salinesi, and Daniel Diaz. 2007. Deriving product line requirements: the RED-PL guidance approach. In Proceedings of the 14th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC '07). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 494-501. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1109/ASPEC.2007.63.

  • Eduardo, C., & Divo, A. (2011). Automated reasoning on feature models via constraint programming. In Master’s thesis, Technical Report IT 11 041. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elfaki, A. O., Amnuaisuk, S. P., & Chin, K. H. (2009a). Using first order logic to validate feature model. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Variability Modelling in Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS), ICB-Research Report No. 29 (pp. 169–172). Spain: Universität Duisburg-Essen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdelrahman O. Elfaki, Somnuk P. Amnuaisuk, and Chin K. Ho. 2009b. Investigating inconsistency detection as a validation operation in software product line, in: Roger Lee, Naohiro Ishii (Eds.), software engineering research, management and applications, (book chapter in or series title) studies in computational intelligence, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 159–168. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05441-9_14.

  • Abdelrahman O. Elfaki, Somnuk Phon-Amnuaisuk, and Chin K. Ho. 2010. An interactive method for validating stage configuration. J. Softw. Eng. and Apps 3, 6 (June 2010), 614–627. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2010.36072

  • Elfaki, A. O., Fong, S. L., Aik, K. L. T., & Johar, M. G. M. (2013). Towards detecting redundancy in domain engineering process using first order logic rules. Int. J. Knowl. Eng. Soft Data Paradigm, 4, 1(March 2013), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKESDP.2013.052716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfaki, A. O., Fong, S. L., Vijayaprasad, P., Johar, M. G. M., & Fadhil, M. S. (2014). Using a rule-based method for detecting anomalies in software product line. Res. J. Applied Sci., Engi. and Tech, 7, 2(Jan. 2014), 275–281. https://doaj.org/article/ab3dea94a0a747af861b5944fcd067fe.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaofeng Fan and and Naixiao Zhang. 2006. Feature model based on description logics. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, KES 2006, Part II. Springer–Verlag Heidelberg, Bournemouth, UK, 1144–1151. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/11893004_145

  • Felfernig, A., Benavides, D., Galindo, J., & Reinfrank, F. (2013). Towards anomaly explanation in feature models. In Proceedings of the 15th International Configuration Workshop (ConfWS-2013), Vienna, Austria (pp. 117–124) 10.1.1.428.5517.

    Google Scholar 

  • João B. F. Filho, Olivier Barais, Mathieu Acher, Benoit Baudry, and Jérôme Le Noir. 2013. Generating counterexamples of model-based software product lines: an exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 72–81. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1145/2491627.2491639

  • Rohit Gheyi, Tiago Massoni, and Paulo Borba. 2006. A theory for feature models in alloy. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFY First Alloy Workshop. Portland, United States, 71–80. DOI : 10.1.1.295.4053.

  • Gloria L. Giraldo, Luisa Rincón-Perez and Raul Mazo. 2014. Identifying dead features and their causes in product line models: an ontological approach. Revista DYNA 81, (Feb. 2014), 68–77. DOI : https://doi.org/10.15446/dyna.v81n183.36348

  • Griss, M. L., Favaro, J., & Alessandro, M. D. (1998). Integrating Feature modeling with the RSEB. In Prosceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse (ICSR '98) (pp. 76–85). Washington: IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSR.1998.685732.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, J., Wang, Y., Trinidad, P., & Benavides, D. (2012). Consistency maintenance for evolving feature models. Expert Syst Appl, 39, 5(April 2012), 4987–4998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.10.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurp, J. V., Bosch, J., & Svahnberg, M. (2001). On the notion of variability in software product lines. In In Proceedings of the Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA '01) (pp. 45–54). Washington: IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/WICSA.2001.948406.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Adithya Hemakumar. 2008. Finding contradictions in feature models. In proceedings of the first international workshop on analyses of software product lines (ASPL' 08). 183-190.

  • Mikolas Janota and Joseph Kiniry. 2007. Reasoning about feature models in higher-order logic. In Proceedings of the 11th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 07). IEEE computer society, Kyoto, 13-22. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1109/SPLC.2007.30.

  • Javed, M., Naeem, M., & Wahab, H. A. (2014). Towards the maturity model for feature oriented domain analysis. Computational Ecology and Software, 4(3 (Sep. 2014)), 170–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jesusu G. Galán, Pablo Trinidad, José Á. Galindo, and Antonio R. Cortés. 2011. Tool supported error detection and explanations on feature models. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Formal Methods and Analysis in Software Product Line Engineering (FMSPLE 2011), co-located with Software Product Line Conference 2011 (SPLC 2011). Fraunhofer, Munich, 6–6. DOI : https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3070.8801

  • Kang, K. C., Cohen, S. G., Hess, J. A., Novak, W. E., & Peterson, S. (1990). Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA)–feasibility study. In Technical Report CMU – SEI- 90-TR-21. Software Engineering Institute: Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, K. C., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K., Shin, E., & Huh, M. (1998). FORM: A feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures. Ann. Softw. Eng, 5, 1(January 1998), 143–168. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=590631.590645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, K. C., Lee, J., & Donohoe, P. (2002). Feature-oriented project line engineering. IEEE Softw, 19(4 (July 2002)), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2002.1020288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karataş, A. S., Oğuztüzün, H., & Doğru, A. (2013). From extended feature models to constraint logic programming. Sci. Comp. Program, 78, 12(Dec. 2013), 2295–2312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2012.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbara Kitchenham. 2004. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Joint Technical Report, Keele University Technical Report TR/SE-0401 and NICTA Technical Report 0400011T.1. Software Engineering Group, Department of Computer Science, Keele University, UK and Empirical Software Engineering, National ICT Australia Ltd, Australia.

  • Barbara Kitchenham and Stuart Charters. 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (version 2.3). EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01. Software Engineering Group, School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University, Keele and Department of Computer Science, University of Durham, Durham, UK, 57 pages.

  • Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering-A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol, 51, 1(Jan. 2009), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaus, P., Böckle, G., & van Der Linden, F. J. (2005). Software product line engineering: Foundations, principles, and techniques. Springer Science & Business: Media.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kyo, C. (2002). Kang, Kwamvoo Lee, and Jaejoon Lee. FOPLE-Feature Oriented Product Line Software Engineering: Principles and Guidelines. Pohang University of Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uwe Lesta, Ina Schaefer, and Tim Winkelmann. 2015. Detecting and explaining conflicts in attributed feature models. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Formal Methods and Analysis in SPL Engineering (FMSPLE 2015). London, UK, 31–43. DOI : https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.182.3, 182, 31, 43.

  • Lutz, R. (2007). Survey of product-line verification and validation techniques. In Technical report 2014/41221. NASA: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, La Canada Flintridge, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannion, M. (2002). Using first-order logic for product line model validation. In G. J. Chastek (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software Product Lines (SPLC 2) (pp. 176–187). London: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45652-X_11.

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mike Mannion and Javier Cámara. 2003. Theorem proving for product line model verification. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering (PFE 2003). Springer-Verlag, Siena, Italy, 211–224. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24667-1_16.

  • Mazo, R. (2011). A generic approach for automated verification of product line models. PhD Dissertation. Université Panthéon-Sorbonne-Paris I.

  • Raúl Mazo, Camille Salinesi, Daniel Diaz, and Alberto Lora-Michiels. 2011a. Transforming attribute and clone-enabled feature models into constraint programs over finite domains. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE’11). Beijing, China, 188–199. DOI : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00707546

  • Raúl Mazo, Roberto E. Lopez-Herrejon, Camille Salinesi, Daniel Diaz, and Alexander Egyed. 2011b. Conformance checking with constraint logic programming: The case of feature models. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference. Munich, Germany, 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2011.66.

  • Mendonça, M., Cowan, D. D., Malyk, W., & Oliveira, T. (2008). Collaborative product configuration: Formalization and efficient algorithms for dependency analysis. JSW, 3, 2(Feb. 2008), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.4304/jsw.3.2.69-82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noorian, M., Ensan, A., Bagheri, E., Boley, H., & Biletskiy, Y. (2011). Feature model debugging based on description logic reasoning. In In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Multimedia Systems (DMS’11). Knowledge systems Institute, Florence, Italy (pp. 158–164).

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdelrahman Osman, Somnuk P. Amnuaisuk, and Chin K. Ho. 2008. Knowledge based method to validate feature models. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference Software Product Lines Conference (SPLC 2008). Limerick, Ireland. 217–225.

  • Sachin Patel, Priya Gupta, and Vipul Shah. 2013. Combinatorial interaction testing with multi-perspective feature models. In Proceedings of IEEE Sixth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW ‘13). IEEE, Luxembourg, 321-330. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSTW.2013.43.

  • Pohl, R., Lauenroth, K., & Pohl, K. (2011). A performance comparison of contemporary algorithmic approaches for automated analysis operations on feature models. In In Proceedings of 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2011). IEEE, Lawrence, KS, USA (pp. 313–322). https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE.2011.6100068.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • R Reiter. 1987. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32, 1 (April 1987), 57–95. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(87)90062-2.

  • Matthias Riebisch, Kai Böllert, Detlef Streitferdt, and Ilka Philippow. 2002. Extending feature diagrams with UML multiplicities. In Proceedings of the 6th World Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT 2002). Pasadena, California, USA. DOI : 10.1.1.15.1653.

  • Rincón, L. F., Giraldo, G. L., Mazo, R., & Salinesi, C. (2014). An ontological rule-based approach for analyzing dead and false optional features in feature models. Electron. Notes in Theor. Comput. Sci., 302(Feb. 2014), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2014.01.023.

  • Rincón, L., Giraldo, G. L., Mazo, R., Salinesi, C., & Diaz, D. (2015). Method to identify corrections of defects on product line models. Electronic Notes in Theo. Comp. Sci, 314(June 2015), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2015.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripon, S., Hossain, S. J., & Bhuiyan, T. (2013). Managing and analysing software product line requirements. Int. J. Soft. Engi. & Apps, 4, 5(Sept. 2013), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijsea.2013.4505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camille Salinesi and Raúl Mazo. 2012. Defects in product line models and how to identify them, Software Product Line - Advanced Topic, Abdelrahman Elfaki (Ed.), InTech, chapter 5, 97–122. DOI : https://doi.org/10.5772/35662.

  • Camille Salinesi, Colette Rolland, and Raúl Mazo. 2009. VMWare: Tool support for automatic verification of structural and semantic correctness in product line models. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMos 2009). Sevilla, Spain, 173–176. DOI: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00707523

  • Camille Salinesi, Raúl Mazo, and Daniel Diaz. 2010a. Criteria for the verification of feature models. In Proceedings of the 28th INFORSID Conference. Marseille, France, 293-308.

  • Salinesi, C., Mazo, R., Diaz, D., & Djebbi, O. (2010b). Solving integer constraint in reuse based requirements engineering. In In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'10) (p. 50).

  • Salinesi, C., Mazo, R., Djebbi, O., Diaz, D., & Lora-Michiels, A. (2011). Constraints: The core of product line engineering. In In Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science. IEEE Press, Guadeloupe-French West Indies, France (pp. 29–38).

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael Sannella. 1994. Skyblue: A multi-way local propagation constraint solver for user interface construction. In Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST '94). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 137-146. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1145/192426.192485.

  • Klaus Schmid and Isabel John. 2004. A customizable approach to full lifecycle variability management. Sci. Comput. Program. 53, 3 (December 2004), 259–284. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2003.04.002

  • Pierre-Yves Schobbens, Patrick Heymans, and Jean-Christophe Trigaux. 2006. Feature diagrams: A survey and a formal semantics. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06). IEEE, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 139-148. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2006.23.

  • Schobbens, P. Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J. C., & Bontemps, Y. (2007). Generic semantics of feature diagrams. Comput. Netw., 51(2 (Feb. 2007)), 456–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2006.08.008.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Segura, S. (2008). Automated analysis of feature models using atomic sets. In In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference, SPLC’08. Limerick, Ireland (pp. 201–207).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergio Segura, David Benavides, and Antonio R. Cortés. 2010a. FaMa test suite v1.2. Technical report ISA-10-TR-0. 1-52. Applied software engineering research group, University of Seville, Spain.

  • Segura, S., Hierons, R. M., Benavides, D., & Cortés, A. R. (2010b). Automated test data generation on the analyses of feature models: A metamorphic testing approach. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST ‘10). Paris (pp. 35–44). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2010.20.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Segura, S., Hierons, R. M., Benavides, D., & Cortés, A. R. (2011). Automated metamorphic testing on the analyses of feature models. Inf. Softw. Technol., 53, 3(March 2011), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.11.002.

  • Sergio Segura, José A. Galindo, David Benavides, José A. Parejo, and Antonio R. Cortés. 2012. BeTTy: Benchmarking and testing on the automated analysis of feature models. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 63-71. DOI : http://doi.acm.org /https://doi.org/10.1145/2110147.2110155.

  • Farida Semmak, Régine Laleau, and Christophe Gnaho. 2009. Supporting variability in goal-based requirements. In 2009 Third International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, IEEE, fez, 237-246. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2009.5089287.

  • Semmak, F., Gnaho, C., & Laleau, R. (2008). Extended kaos method to model variability in requirements. In International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (pp. 193–205). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14819-4_14.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B. C., Kalyanpur, A., & Katz, Y. (2007). Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Web Semant, 5, 2(June 2007), 51–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2007.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streitferdt, D. (2003). Family-oriented requirements engineering. PhD Dissertation: Technical University Ilmenau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Detlef Streitferdt, Matthias Riebisch, and Ilka Philippow. 2003. Details of formalized relations in feature models using OCL. In Proceedings of 10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Computer–Based Systems (ECBS 2003). IEEE Computer Society, Huntsville, USA, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECBS.2003.1194811

  • Sun, J., Zhang, H., & Wang, H. (2005). Formal semantics and verification for feature modeling. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS '05) (pp. 303–312). Washington: IEEE computer society. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECCS.2005.48.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thüm, T., Kästner, C., Benduhn, F., Meinicke, J., Saake, G., & Leich, T. (2014a). FeatureIDE: An extensible framework for feature-oriented software development. Sci. Comput. Program, 79(Jan. 2014), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2012.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thüm, T., Apel, S., Kastner, C., Schaefer, I., & Saake, G. (2014b). A classification and survey of analysis strategies for software product lines. ACM Comput. Surv, 47, 1, Article 6(June 2014), 45. https://doi.org/10.1145/2580950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trinidad, P., & Cortés, A. R. (2009). Abductive reasoning and automated analysis of feature models: How are they connected? In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software Intensive Systems (VaMoS 2009) . Sevilla, Spain (pp. 145–153). https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4955.0400.

  • Trinidad, P., Benavides, D., & Cortés, A. R. (2006a). Isolated features detection in feature models. In Proceedings of the. In 18th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2006) (pp. 1–4). Luxembour.

  • Pablo Trinidad, David Benavides, Antonio R. Cortés, Sergio Segura, and Miguel Toro. 2006b. Explanations for agile feature models. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Agile Product Line Engineering (APLE ‘06). Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. DOI : 10.1.1.333.3310.

  • Trinidad, P., Benavides, D., Durán, A., Cortés, A. R., & Toro, M. (2008a). Automated error analysis for the agilization of feature modeling. J. Syst. & Softw, 81(6 (June 2008)) Elsevier, 883–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2007.10.030.

  • Trinidad, P., Benavides, D., Cortés, A. R., Segura, S., & Jimenez, A. (2008b). FAMA framework. In Proceedings of the 2008 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC '08) (p. 359). Washington: IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPLC.2008.50.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pablo Trinidad, Antonio R. Cortés, and David Benavides. 2013. Automated analysis of stateful feature models. In Seminal Contributions to Information Systems Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, chapter 30, 375–380. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36926-1_30

  • Pablo Trinidad, Antonio R. Cortés, and Jesus G. Galan. 2014. Configurable feature models. In Proceedings of the XIX Conference on Software Engineering and Databases. 335-348. DOI : https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2787.2326.

  • van den Broek, P., & Galvao, I. (2009). Analysis of feature models using generalised feature trees. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS 2009) (pp. 29–35). Spain: Sevilla. https://doi.org/10.1011/216.5377.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden, F. J., Schmid, K., & Rommes, E. (2007). Software product lines in action: The best industrial practice in product line engineering. Secaucus: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc..

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tijs van der Storm. 2004. Variability and component composition. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Reuse (ICSR 2004)- Software Reuse: Methods, Techniques and Tools. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3107, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Madrid, Spain, 157–166. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27799-6_13

  • Tijs van der Storm. 2007. Generic feature-based software composition. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Composition.Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, 66–80. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77351-1_6

  • van Deursen, A., & Klint, P. (2002). Domain–specific language design requires feature descriptions. J. of Comp. and Info. Tech, 10(1 (2002)), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2498/cit.2002.01.01.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • von der Maßen, T., & Lichter, H. (2004a). Deficiencies in feature models (pp. 59–62). USA: In Proceedings of the Workshop on Software Variability Management for Product Derivation - Towards Tool Support. Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas von der Maßen and Horst Lichter. 2004b. RequiLine: An engineering tool for software product lines. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering (PFE 2003). Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 3014. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Siena, 168–180.s https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24667-1_13

  • Wang, H., Li, Y. F., Sun, J., Zhang, H., & Pan, J. (2005). A semantic web approach to feature modeling and verification. In In Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE’05). Galway: Ireland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. H., Li, Y. F., Sun, J., Zhang, H., & Pan, J. (2007). Verifying feature models using OWL. Web Semant, 5, 2(June 2007), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2006.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bo Wang, Yingfei Xiong, Zhenjiang Hu, Haiyan Zhao, Wei Zhang, and Hong Mei. 2010. A dynamic-priority based approach to fixing inconsistent feature models. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Part I (MODELS '10), Dorina C. Petriu, Nicolas Rouquette, and Øystein Haugen (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 181–195.

  • Jane Webster and Richard T. Watson. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26, 2 (June 2002), xiii-xxiii. DOI : https://doi.org/10.2307/4132319.

  • David M. Weiss. 2008. The product line hall of fame. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC’08). IEEE, Washington, DC, USA, 395. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1109/SPLC.2008.56.

  • Jules White, Douglas C. Schmidt, David Benavides, Pablo Trinidad, and Antonio R. Cortés. 2008. Automated diagnosis of product-line configuration errors in feature models. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC '08). IEEE CS Press, Limerick, 225-234. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1109/SPLC.2008.16.

  • White, J., Dougherty, B., & Schmidt, D. C. (2009). Selecting highly optimal architectural feature sets with filtered cartesian flattening. J. Syst. Softw, 82, 8(Aug. 2009), 1268–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2009.02.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, J., Benavides, D., Schmidt, D. C., Trinidad, P., Dougherty, B., & Cortés, A. R. (2010). Automated diagnosis of feature model configurations. J. Syst. Softw, 83, 7(July 2010), 1094–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.02.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, J., Galindo, J. A., Saxena, T., Dougherty, B., Benavides, D., & Schmidt, D. C. (2014). Evolving feature model configurations in software product lines. J. Syst. Softw, 87(Jan. 2014), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.10.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye, H., Lin, Y., & Zhang, W. (2010). Streamlined feature dependency representation in software product lines. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP’10). Las Vegas, Nevada (pp. 612–618). http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/927405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaid, L. A., Kleinermann, F., & De Troyer, O. (2009). Applying semantic web technology to feature modeling. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM symposium on Applied Computing (SAC '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1252-1256. DOI. https://doi.org/10.1145/1529282.1529563.

  • Zhang, W., Zhao, H., & Mei, H. (2004). A propositional logic-based method for verification of feature models. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods, (ICFEM 2004), Seattle, WA, USA (pp. 115–130). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30482-1_16.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W., Mei, H., & Zhao, H. (2006). Feature-driven requirement dependency analysis and high-level software design. Requirements Eng, 11, 3(June 2006), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-006-0033-x.

  • Wei Zhang, Hua Yan, Haiyan Zhao, and Zhi Jin. 2008. A BDD-based approach to verifying clone-enabled feature models' constraints and customization. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Software Reuse: High Confidence Software Reuse in Large Systems (ICSR '08), Hong Mei (Ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 186–199. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68073-4_18

  • Zhang, G., Ye, H., & Lin, Y. (2011). Feature model validation: A constraint propagation-based approach. In In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (ICSERP’11). Las Vegas: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, G., Ye, H., & Lin, Y. (2013). An approach for validating feature models in software product lines. J. Softw. Engi, 7, 1(Jan. 2013), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3923/jse.2013.1.29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

One of the authors, Megha, gratefully acknowledges the University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, Government of India, for awarding her the Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship (Grant no. F117.1/201415/RGNF201415SCJAM66324) to carry out this research work. We would like to thank Vikram Jeet Singh, Research Scholar, Department of Computer Science, Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, India.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, DIT University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

    Megha Bhushan

  2. Cyber Advisory, Deloitte USI, Hyderabad, India

    Arun Negi

  3. Adventum Advanced Solution Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, Karnataka, India

    Piyush Samant

  4. Bennett University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Shivani Goel

  5. Thapar Institute of Engineering, Patiala, Punjab, India

    Ajay Kumar

Authors
  1. Megha Bhushan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arun Negi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Piyush Samant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shivani Goel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ajay Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megha Bhushan.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhushan, M., Negi, A., Samant, P. et al. A classification and systematic review of product line feature model defects. Software Qual J 28, 1507–1550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-020-09522-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-020-09522-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation