DOC PREVIEW
goals

This preview shows page 1-2-19-20 out of 20 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 20 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 20 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 20 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 20 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 20 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Using Social Network Analysis Methods for the Prediction of Faulty ComponentsList of ContentsMotivationsOur VisionGoal ModelsGoal models and software architecturesSoftware Architectural Slices(SAS)Example of SASPredicting Fault prone componentsSlide 10Aggregated Metrics based on SASLogistic RegressionLogistic regression and Architectural slicesHow to train and validate?Measures for ValidationRelated worksComparison with related worksConclusionReferenceSlide 20Using Social Network Analysis Methods forthe Prediction of Faulty ComponentsGholamreza SafList of Contents•Motivations•Our Vision•Goal Models•Software Architectural Slices(SAS)•Predicting Fault prone components•Comparison with related works•Conclusions 2Motivations•Finding errors as early as possible in software life-cycle is important•Using dependency data, socio-technical analysis•Considering dependency between software elements•Considering interactions between developers during the life-cycle 3[Bird et al 2009]Our Vision•Provide a facility for considering concerns of roles other than developers who participating in development process•Not directly like socio-technical based approaches•Complexity•Some basis is needed to model concerns•Goal Models and software architectures 4Goal Models 5Goal models and software architectures•Software Architecture(SA): Set of principal design decisions•goal models represent the different way of satisfaction of a high-level goal•They could have impacts 0n SA•Components and connectors is a common representation of SA•So we should show the impact of Goal models on this representation of SA 6Software Architectural Slices(SAS)•Software Architectural Slices(SAS): is part of a software architecture (a subset of interacting components and related connectors) that provides the functionality of a leaf level goal of a goal model graph•An Algorithm is designed to extract SAS of a system, given goal model and the entry point of leaf level goals in the SA 7Example of SASLeaf-level Goal in goal Model SliceSend request for topic User Interface, User Manager, User Data InterfaceDecrypt received message User ManagerSend Requests for Interests User Interface, User Manager, User Data InterfaceSend Request for time table User Interface, User Manager, User Data Interface, Time Table ManagerChoose schedule Automatically User Interface, User Manager, User Data Interface, Event Manager, Event Data InterfaceSelect Participants Explicitly User Interface, User Manager, User Data InterfaceCollect Timetables by system from AgentsUser Interface, Agent Manager Interface 8Predicting Fault prone components•Social Networks analysis methods•Metrics•Connectivity metrics:•individual nodes and their immediate neighbors•Degree•Centrality Metrics•relation between non-immediate neighbor nodes in network•Closeness•Betweeness 9ComponentsDegree Closeness BetweenessUser Interface 4 8/6=1.33 6+1+1+1=9User Manager 2 11/6=1.83 ½+1/2+1/2=1.5Timetable Manager3 9/6=1.5 ½+1/3+1+1/3+1/2+1/2=2.88Event Manager 2 11/6=1.83 1/3+1/3=2/3Agent Manager Interface2 11/6=1.83 1/3+1/3=2/3User Data Interface2 14/6=2.33 0Event Data Interface3 12/6=2 0 10Aggregated Metrics based on SASLeaf Level Goals Aggregated DegreeAggregated ClosenessAggregated BetweenessSend request for topic 8 33/6 10.5Decrypt received message2 11/6 1.5Send Requests for Interests8 33/6 10.5Send Request for time table11 42/6=7 10.5+2.88=13..33Choose schedule Automatically13 58/6 10.5+2/3=11.16Select Participants Explicitly8 33/6 10.5Collect Timetables by system from Agents6 19/6 9+2/3=9.66•metrics for individual components could not be very useful for test related analysis, since it only provide information for unit level testing•In a real computation many components collaborate with each other to provide a service or satisfy a goal of the system•A bug in one of them could have bad impact on all of the other collaborators 11Logistic Regression)1(11)( equationezfz 12Logistic regression and Architectural slices•we want to select the beta values for three aggregated metrics •After this by using f(z) we could fnd the probability of the event that the corresponding architectural slice encounter at least one error•The process for making a logistic regression ready for prediction contains two stages:•Training•Validation 133322110xxxz•Consider a test suite and based on the number of failed test cases, compute the probability of a slice to being faulty (number of failed test case for that slice/total number of test cases) •then using metrics, try to fnd beta values to make f(z) close to computed probability.•Evaluate the model by actual data. •Validation measures could help us to determine the quality of our initial model. •The process of training and validation should be repeated until we reach to a certain level of confdence about our model.How to train and validate? 14Measures for Validation•Precision: Ratio of (true positives) to (true positives + false positives)•True positives: number of error prone slices which also determine to be error-prone in the model•False positives: Those which have not error but shown to have errors using approach•Recall: Ratio of (true positives) to (true positives + false negatives) •False Negatives: Those which are considered to be error free by mistake using approach•F Score: 15Related works•Zimmerman and Nagappan •Uses dependency data between different part of code •These kind of techniques are accurate•Central components could have more errors•Bird et al. using a socio-technical network •consider the work of developers and the updates that they make to files •Similar to Meneely et al.•The main idea:•A developer who participated in developing different files could have the same impact on those files –Make the same sort of faults 16Comparison with related works•Our approach has the benefts of dependency data approaches •Dependency between SA components•Dependency between goals and SA•Goal models introduce some privileges•Compare to Social Network based approaches:•They only consider simple contribution of developers such as updating a file•Goals and their relations shows the concerns of stakeholders•consider impacts of different stakeholders implicitly •other aspects of a developer –lack of knowledge in using a


goals

Download goals
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view goals and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view goals 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?