Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

John Lång

dblp:244/2106 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
0000-0002-9394-2464ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program verification · 87% Software testing · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification
model checking
0.412019
Model checking a C++ software framework: a case study · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019
Program verification › model checking
software model checking
0.412019
Model checking a C++ software framework: a case study · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019
Software testing
unit testing
0.112019
Model checking a C++ software framework: a case study · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

model checking · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Model checking a C++ software framework: a case study
abstract
This paper presents a case study on applying two model checkers, Spin and Divine, to verify key properties of a C++ software framework, known as ADAPRO, originally developed at CERN. Spin was used for verifying properties on the design level. Divine was used for verifying simple test applications that interacted with the implementation. Both model checkers were found to have their own respective sets of pros and cons, but the overall experience was positive. Because both model checkers were used in a complementary manner, they provided valuable new insights into the framework, which would arguably have been hard to gain by traditional testing and analysis tools only. Translating the C++ source code into the modeling language of the Spin model checker helped to find flaws in the original design. With Divine, defects were found in parts of the code base that had already been subject to hundreds of hours of unit tests, integration tests, and acceptance tests. Most importantly, model checking was found to be easy to integrate into the workflow of the software project and bring added value, not only as verification, but also validation methodology. Therefore, using model checking for developing library-level code seems realistic and worth the effort.
John Lång, I. S. W. B. Prasetya
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE1