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

Panuchart Bunyakiati

dblp:21/3413 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 2 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2

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
2 papers
Software maintenance and evolution · 70% Software testing · 20% Compilers and program optimization · 10%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution › software configuration management
version control
0.312017
Cherry-picking of code commits in long-running, multi-release software · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Compilers and program optimization › dependence analysis
dependence graph analysis
0.112017
Cherry-picking of code commits in long-running, multi-release software · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Software testing › combinatorial testing
bounded exhaustive testing
0.112008
Using JULE to generate a compliance test suite for the UML standard · ICSE 2008
Software testing › test generation
test suite generation
0.112008
Using JULE to generate a compliance test suite for the UML standard · ICSE 2008

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

dependency graph · 0.3commit hashtags · 0.3branch identifier · 0.3grid computing · 0.1binary decision diagrams · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 Synthetic Runtime Monitoring of Microservices Software Architecture
abstract
This paper describes Pink, a framework for synthetic runtime monitoring of microservices software systems which allows developers to specify the interactions of services using a UML component diagram, the assertions for the global properties of the microservices using OCL specifications, and the steps for interactions using UML sequence diagrams. Pink generates from the component diagram a set of object diagrams, selects them according to the OCL specifications and synthesises monitoring scripts by using the sequence diagrams as templates referencing to the objects. Pink supports monitoring of microservices for their operability regarding a range of non-functional properties such as session management, caching and security.
Chadarat Phipathananunth, Panuchart Bunyakiati
COMPSAC (2)2
2018 On Selecting Collaborative Modeling Tools
abstract
A distributed software development team generally requires collaborative modeling tools to support its modeling activities. We investigated and found an increasing number of tools that support advanced collaborative modeling. We study the current state of modeling tools and identify functionalities which make collaboration in distributed software development teams efficient. In this article, we report our initial findings and discuss a strategy to select collaborative software modeling tools for distributed software teams.
Usa Sammapun, Panuchart Bunyakiati
COMPSAC (1)2
2017 Cherry-picking of code commits in long-running, multi-release software
abstract
This paper presents Tartarian, a tool that supports maintenance of software with long-running, multi-release branches in distributed version control systems. When new maintenance code, such as bug fixes and code improvement, is committed into a branch, it is likely that such code can be applied or reused with some other branches. To do so, a developer may manually identify a commit and cherry pick it. Tartarian can support this activity by providing commit hashtags, which the developer uses as metadata to specify their intentions when committing the code. With these tags, Tartarian uses dependency graph, that represents the dependency constraints of the branches, and Branch Identifier, which matches the commit hashtags with the dependency graph, to identify the applicable branches for the commits. Using Tartarian, developers may be able to maintain software with multiple releases more efficiently. A video demo of Tartarian is available at www.github.com/tartarian.
Panuchart Bunyakiati, Chadarat Phipathananunth
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE1
2008 Using JULE to generate a compliance test suite for the UML standard
abstract
The Java-UML Lightweight Enumerator (JULE) tool implements a vitally important aspect of the framework for software tool certification- test suite generation. The framework uses UML models as the test inputs for the bounded exhaustive-testing approach. Within a size bound for the metamodel types, JULE enumerates only the set of non-isomorphic models in the form of relational structures. These models are classified into two sets- demonstration and counterexample- using Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs). The power of JULE lies in its model enumeration and its use of a high-performance grid infrastructure. Hence, JULE efficiently generates a very small test suite while increasing the bound on the input size to the extent that is practical for certification purpose.
Panuchart Bunyakiati, Anthony Finkelstein, James Skene, Clovis Chapman
ICSE1