Slide 11.1 Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering...Slide 11.1 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering Fifth Edition, WCB/McGraw-Hill,

Slide 11.1

© The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002

Object-Oriented and Classical Software

Engineering

Fifth Edition, WCB/McGraw-Hill, 2002

Stephen R. [email protected]

Slide 11.2


CHAPTER 11

SPECIFICATION PHASE

Slide 11.3


Overview

The specification documentInformal specificationsStructured systems analysisOther semiformal techniquesEntity-relationship modelingFinite state machinesPetri netsOther formal techniques

Slide 11.4


Overview (contd)

Comparison of specification techniquesTesting during the specification phaseCASE tools for the specification phaseMetrics for the specification phaseAir Gourmet Case Study: structured systems analysisAir Gourmet Case Study: software project management planChallenges of the specifications phase

Slide 11.5


Specification Phase

Specification document must be – Informal enough for client– Formal enough for developers– Free of omissions, contradictions, ambiguities

Slide 11.6


Specification Document

Constraints– Cost– Time– Parallel running – Portability– Reliability– Rapid response time

Slide 11.7


Specification Document (contd)

Acceptance criteria– Vital to spell out series of tests– If the product passes the tests, it is deemed have

satisfied its specifications– Some acceptance criteria are restatements of

constraints

Slide 11.8


Solution Strategy

A general approach to building the product Find strategies without worrying about constraints Modify strategies in the light of constraints, if necessaryKeep a written record of all discarded strategies, and why they were discarded– To protect the specification team – To prevent unwise new “solutions” during the

maintenance phase

Slide 11.9


Informal Specifications

Example“If the sales for the current month are below the target sales, then a report is to be printed, unless the difference between target sales and actual sales is less than half of the difference between target sales and actual sales in the previous month, or if the difference between target sales and actual sales for the current month is under 5%”

Slide 11.10


Meaning of Specification

Sales target for January was $100,000, actual sales were only $64,000 (36% below target)– Print report

Sales target for February was $120,000, actual sales were only $100,000 (16.7% below target)– Percentage difference for February (16.7%) is less than

half of the previous month’s percentage difference (36%), so do not print report

Sales target for March was $100,000, actual sales were $98,000 (2% below target)– Percentage difference is under 5%, so do not print

report

Slide 11.11


But Specifications Do Not Say This

“[D]ifference between target sales and actual sales”– There is no mention of percentage difference

Difference in January was $36,000, difference in February was $20,000– Not less than half of $36,000, so the report is printed

“[D]ifference … [of] 5%” – Again, no mention of percentage

Ambiguity—should the last clause read “percentage difference … [of] 5%” or “difference … [of] $5,000” or something else entirely?The style is poor

Slide 11.12


Informal Specifications (contd)

Claim– This cannot arise with professional specifications writers

Refutation– Text Processing case study

Slide 11.13


Episode 1

1969 — Naur PaperGiven a text consisting of words separated by blank or by newline characters, convert it to line-by-line form in accordance with the following rules:(1) line breaks must be made only where the given text contains a blank or newline;(2) each line is filled as far as possible, as long as(3) no line will contain more than maxpos characters

Naur constructed a procedure (25 lines of Algol 60), and informally proved its correctness

Slide 11.14


Episode 2

1970 — Reviewer in Computing Reviews– The first word of the first line is preceded by a blank

unless the first word is exactly maxpos characters long

Slide 11.15


Episode 3

1971 — London found 3 more faults– Including: procedure does not terminate unless a word

longer than maxpos characters is encountered

Slide 11.16


Episode 4

1975 — Goodenough and Gerhart found 3 further faults– Including—last word will not be output unless it is

followed by blank or newline

Goodenough and Gerhart then produced new set of specifications, about four times longer than Naur’s

Slide 11.17


Case Study (contd)

1985 — Meyer detected 12 faults in Goodenough and Gerhart’s specificationsGoodenough and Gerhart’s specifications – Were constructed with the greatest of care– Were constructed to correct Naur’s specifications– Went through two versions, carefully refereed– Were written by experts in specifications– With as much time as they needed– For a product about 30 lines long

What chance do we have of writing fault-free specifications for a real product?

Slide 11.18


Episode 5

1989 — Schach found a fault in Meyer’s specifications– Item (2) of Naur’s original requirement (“each line is

filled as far as possible”) is not satisfied

Slide 11.19


Informal Specifications

Conclusion– Natural language is not a good way to specify product

Fact– Many organizations still use natural language,

especially for commercial productsReasons– Uninformed management– Undertrained computer professionals– Management gives in to client pressure– Management is unwilling to invest in training

Slide 11.20


Structured Systems Analysis

Three popular graphical specification methods of ’70s– DeMarco– Gane and Sarsen– Yourdon

All are equivalentAll are equally goodMany U.S. corporations use them for commercial products Gane and Sarsen’s method is taught here because it is so widely used.

Slide 11.21


Structured Systems Analysis Case Study

Sally’s Software Shop buys software from various suppliers and sells it to the public. Popular software packages are kept in stock, but the rest must be ordered as required. Institutions and corporations are given credit facilities, as are some members of the public. Sally’s Software Shop is doing well, with a monthly turnover of 300 packages at an average retail cost of $250 each. Despite her business success, Sally has been advised to computerize. Should she?

Better question– What sections?

Still better– How? Batch, or online? In-house or out-service?

Slide 11.22


Case Study (contd)

Fundamental issue – What is Sally’s objective in computerizing her business?

Because she sells software?– She needs an in-house system with sound and light

effectsBecause she uses her business to launder “hot” money?– She needs a product that keeps five different sets of

books, and has no audit trail

Slide 11.23


Case Study (contd)

We assume: Sally wishes to computerize “in order to make more money” – We need to perform cost/benefit analysis for each

section of her business

Slide 11.24


Case Study (contd)

The danger of many standard approaches – First produce the solution, then find out what the

problem is!Gane and Sarsen’s method– Nine-step method – Stepwise refinement is used in many steps

Slide 11.25


Case Study (contd)

Data flow diagram (DFD) shows the logical data flow – “what happens, not

how it happens”Notation:

Slide 11.26


Step 1. Draw the DFD

First refinementInfinite number of possible interpretations

Slide 11.27


Step 1 (contd)

Second refinementPENDING ORDERS is scanned daily

Slide 11.28


Step 1 (contd)

Portion of third refinement

Slide 11.29


Step 1 (contd)

Final DFD – Larger, but it is easily understood by the client

Larger DFDs– Hierarchy– A box becomes a DFD at a lower level

Frequent problem– A process P at level L is expanded at level L+1– The correct place for sources and destinations of data

for process P is level L+1– Clients cannot understand the DFD—sources and

destinations of data for P are “missing”Solution– Draw the “correct” DFD, modify it by moving sources

and destinations of data one or more levels up

Slide 11.30


Step 2. Decide What Parts to Computerize

Depends on how much client is prepared to spendLarge volumes, tight controls– Batch

Small volumes, in-house microcomputer– Online

Cost/benefit analysis

Slide 11.31


Step 3. Refine Data Flows

Data items for each data flowRefine each flow stepwiseRefine furtherNeed a data dictionary

Slide 11.32


Step 3. Refine Data Flows (contd)

Sample data dictionary entries

Slide 11.33


Step 4. Refine Logic of Processes

Have process give educational discount

– Sally must explain discount for educational institutions– 10% on up to 4 packages, 15% on 5 or more

Translate into decision tree

Slide 11.34


Step 4 (contd)

Advantage of a decision tree– Missing items are quickly apparent

Can also use decision tables – CASE tools for automatic translation

Slide 11.35


Step 5. Refine Data Stores

Define exact contents and representation (format) – COBOL: specify to pic level– Ada: specify digits or delta

Specify where immediate access is required– Data immediate access diagram (DIAD)

Slide 11.36


Step 6. Define Physical Resources

For each file, specify– File name– Organization (sequential, indexed, etc.)– Storage medium– Blocking factor– Records (to field level)

Slide 11.37


Step 7. Determine Input/Output Specs

Specify input forms, input screens, printed output

Slide 11.38


Step 8. Perform Sizing

Numerical data for Step 9 to determine hardware requirements– Volume of input (daily or hourly)– Size, frequency, deadline of each printed report– Size, number of records passing between CPU

and mass storage– Size of each file

Slide 11.39


Step 9. Hardware Requirements

DASD requirementsMass storage for back-upInput needsOutput devices Is existing hardware adequate?If not, recommend buy/lease

Slide 11.40


However

Response times cannot be determinedNumber of I/O channels can only be guessedCPU size and timing can only be guessedNevertheless, no other method provides these data for arbitrary products

The method of Gane and Sarsen/De Marco/Yourdon has resulted in major improvements in the software industry

Slide 11.41


Entity-Relationship Diagrams

Semi-formal techniqueWidely used for specifying databasesUsed for object-oriented analysis

Slide 11.42


Entity-Relationship Diagrams (contd)

Many-to-many relationshipMore complex entity-relationship diagrams

Slide 11.43


Formality versus Informality

Informal method– English (or other natural language)

Semiformal methods– Gane & Sarsen/DeMarco/Yourdon– Entity-Relationship Diagrams– Jackson/Orr/Warnier, – SADT, PSL/PSA, SREM, etc.

Formal methods– Finite State Machines– Petri Nets– Z– ANNA, VDM, CSP, etc.

Slide 11.44


Finite State Machines

Case studyA safe has a combination lock that can be in one of three positions, labeled 1, 2, and 3. The dial can be turned left or right (L or R). Thus there are six possible dial movements, namely 1L, 1R, 2L, 2R, 3L, and 3R. The combination to the safe is 1L, 3R, 2L; any other dial movement will cause the alarm to go off

Slide 11.45


Finite State Machines (contd)

Transition table

Slide 11.46


Extended Finite State Machines

Extend FSM with global predicatesTransition rules have form

state and event and predicate ⇒ new state

Slide 11.47


Elevator Problem

A product is to be installed to control n elevators in a building with m floors. The problem concerns the logic required to move elevators between floors according to the following constraints:1. Each elevator has a set of m buttons, one for each floor. These illuminate when pressed and cause the elevator to visit the corresponding floor. The illumination is canceled when the corresponding floor is visited by the elevator2. Each floor, except the first and the top floor, has two buttons, one to request an up-elevator, one to request a down-elevator. These buttons illuminate when pressed. The illumination is canceled when an elevator visits the floor, then moves in the desired direction 3. If an elevator has no requests, it remains at its current floor with its doors closed

Slide 11.48


Elevator Problem: FSM

Two sets of buttons– Elevator buttons—in each elevator, one for each floor– Floor buttons—two on each floor, one for up-elevator,

one for down-elevatorEB(e, f): Elevator Button in elevator e pressed to request floor f

Slide 11.49


Elevator Buttons (contd)

Two statesEBON(e, f): Elevator Button (e,f) ONEBOFF(e,f): Elevator Button (e,f) OFF

– If an elevator button is on and the elevator arrives at floor f, then the elevator button is turned off

– If the elevator button is off and the elevator button is pressed, then the elevator button comes on

Slide 11.50


Elevator Buttons (contd)

Two eventsEBP(e,f): Elevator Button (e,f) PressedEAF(e,f): Elevator e Arrives at Floor f

Global predicateV(e,f): Elevator e is Visiting (stopped at) floor f

Transition RulesEBOFF(e,f) and EBP(e,f) and not V(e,f) ⇒ EBON(e,f)EBON(e,f) and EAF(e,f) ⇒ EBOFF(e,f)

Slide 11.51


Floor Buttons

Floor buttonsFB(d, f): Floor Button on floor f that requests elevator traveling in

direction d

StatesFBON(d, f): Floor Button (d, f) ONFBOFF(d, f): Floor Button (d, f) OFF

– If the floor button is on and an elevator arrives at floor f, traveling in the correct direction d, then the floor button is turned off

– If the floor button is off and the floor button is pressed, then the floor button comes on

Slide 11.52


Floor Buttons (contd)

EventsFBP(d, f): Floor Button (d, f) PressedEAF(1..n, f): Elevator 1 or … or n Arrives at Floor f

PredicateS(d, e, f): Elevator e is visiting floor f

Direction of motion is up (d = U), down (d = D), or no requests are pending (d = N)

Transition rulesFBOFF(d, f) and FBP(d, f) and not S(d, 1..n, f) ⇒ FBON(d, f)FBON(d, f) and EAF(1..n, f) and S(d, 1..n, f) ⇒ FBOFF(d, f),

d = U or D

Slide 11.53


Elevator Problem: FSM (contd)

State of elevator consists of component substates, including:– Elevator slowing– Elevator stopping– Door opening– Door open with timer running– Door closing after a timeout

Slide 11.54



Assume elevator controller moves elevator through substates– Three elevator states

M(d, e, f): Moving in direction d (floor f is next)S(d, e, f): Stopped (d-bound) at floor f

W(e,f): Waiting at floor f (door closed)

– For simplicity, three stopped states S(U, e, f), S(N, e, f), and S(D, e, f) are grouped into one larger state

Slide 11.55



Slide 11.56



EventsDC(e,f): Door Closed for elevator e, floor fST(e,f): Sensor Triggered as elevator e nears floor f

RL: Request Logged (button pressed)

Transition RulesIf elevator e is in state S(d, e, f) (stopped, d-bound, at floor f), and doors close, then elevator e will move up, down, or go into wait state

DC(e,f) and S(U, e, f) ⇒ M(U, e, f+1)DC(e,f) and S(D, e, f) ⇒ M(D, e, f-1) DC(e,f) and S(N, e, f) ⇒ W(e,f)

Slide 11.57


Power of FSM to Specify Complex Systems

No need for complex preconditions and postconditionsSpecifications take the simple form

current state and event and predicate ⇒ next state

Slide 11.58


Power of FSM to Specify Complex Systems

Using an FSM, a specification is– Easy to write down– Easy to validate– Easy to convert into design– Easy to generate code automatically– More precise than graphical methods– Almost as easy to understand– Easy to maintain

However– Timing considerations are not handled

Slide 11.59


FSMs and Real-Time Systems

Statecharts are a real-time extension of FSMs– CASE tool: Rhapsody

Slide 11.60


Petri Nets

A major difficulty with specifying real-time systems is timing– Synchronization problems– Race conditions– Deadlock

Often a consequence of poor specifications

Slide 11.61


Petri Nets (contd)

Petri nets– Powerful technique for specifying systems that have

potential problems with interrelationsA Petri net consists of four parts: – Set of places P– Set of transitions T– Input function I

– Output function O

Slide 11.62


Petri Nets (contd)

Set of places P is {p1, p2, p3, p4}

Set of transitions Tis {t1, t2}

Input functions:I(t1) = {p2, p4}I(t2) = {p2}

Output functions:O(t1) = {p1}O(t2) = {p3, p3}

Slide 11.63


Petri Nets (contd)

More formally, a Petri net is a 4-tuple C = (P, T, I, O)

P = {p1, p2,…,pn} is a finite set of places, n ≥ 0

T = {t1, t2,…,tm} is a finite set of transitions, m ≥ 0, with Pand T disjointI : T → P∞ is input function, mapping from transitions to bags of placesO : T → P∞ is output function, mapping from transitions to bags of places(A bag is a generalization of sets which allows for multiple instances of element in bag, as in example above)Marking of a Petri net is an assignment of tokens to that Petri net

Slide 11.64


Petri Nets (contd)

Four tokens, one in p1, two in p2, none in p3, and one in p4

– Represented by vector (1,2,0,1)

Transition is enabled if each of its input places has as many tokens in it as there arcs from the place to that transition

Slide 11.65


Petri Nets (contd)

Transition t1 is enabled (ready to fire)– If t1 fires, one token is removed from p2 and one from

p4, and one new token is placed in p1

Important: Number of tokens is not conservedTransition t2 is also enabled

Slide 11.66


Petri Nets (contd)

Petri nets are indeterminate– Suppose t1 fires

Resulting marking is (2,1,0,0)

Slide 11.67


Petri Nets (contd)

Now only t2 is enabled – It fires

Marking is now (2,0,2,0)

Slide 11.68


Petri Nets (contd)

More formally, a marking M of a Petri net C = (P, T, I, O) is a function from the set of places P

to the non-negative integers N

M : P → N

A marked Petri net is then a 5-tuple (P, T, I, O, M )

Slide 11.69


Petri Nets (contd)

Inhibitor arcs– An inhibitor arc is marked by a small circle, not an

arrowhead

Transition t1 is enabled – In general, a transition is enabled if there is at least one

token on each (normal) input arc, and no tokens on any inhibitor input arcs

Slide 11.70


Elevator Problem: Petri Net

A product is to be installed to control nelevators in a building with m floors – Each floor represented by place Ff, 1 ≤ f ≤ m

– Elevator represented by token– Token in Ff denotes that an elevator is at floor Ff

Slide 11.71


Elevator Problem: Petri Net (contd)

First constraint 1. Each elevator has a set of m buttons, one for each floor. These illuminate when pressed and cause the elevator to visit the corresponding floor. The illumination is canceled when the corresponding floor is visited by an elevator

Elevator button for floor f is represented by place EBf, 1 ≤ f ≤ m

A token in EBf denotes that the elevator button for floor f is illuminated

Slide 11.72



A button must be illuminated the first time button is pressed and subsequent button presses must be ignored

If button EBf is not illuminated, no token in place and transition EBf pressed is enabled– Transition fires, a new token is placed in EBf

Now, no matter how many times the button is pressed, transition EBf pressed cannot be enabled

Slide 11.73



When elevator reaches floor g, token is in place Fg, transition Elevator in action is enabled, and then fires– Tokens in EBf and Fg removed– This turns off light in button EBf

– New token appears in Ff

– This brings elevator from floor g to floor f

Slide 11.74



Motion from floor g to floor f cannot take place instantaneously– Timed Petri nets

Slide 11.75



Second constraint2. Each floor, except the first and the top floor, has two buttons, one to request an up-elevator, one to request a down-elevator. These buttons illuminate when pressed. The illumination is canceled when the elevator visits the floor, and then moves in desired direction

Floor buttons represented by places FBuf and FBd

f

Slide 11.76



Slide 11.77



The situation when an elevator reaches floor f

from floor g with one or both buttons illuminated– If both buttons are illuminated, only one is turned off– (A more complex model is needed to ensure that the

correct light is turned off)

Slide 11.78



Third constraintC3. If an elevator has no requests, it remains at its current floor with its doors closed

If there are no requests, no Elevator in action

transition is enabled

Slide 11.79


Petri Nets (contd)

Petri nets can also be used for designPetri nets possess the expressive power necessary for specifying synchronization aspects of real-time systems

Slide 11.80


Z (“zed”)

Formal specification languageHigh squiggle factorZ specification consists of four sections:– 1. Given sets, data types, and constants– 2. State definition– 3. Initial state– 4. Operations

Slide 11.81


Elevator Problem: Z

1. Given sets

Sets that need not be defined in detail– Names appear in brackets – Here we need the set of all buttons– The specification begins

[Button]

Slide 11.82


Elevator Problem: Z (contd)

2. State Definition

Z specification consists of a number of schemata– A schema consists of group of variable declarations,

plus– A list of predicates that constrain values of variables

Slide 11.83



Four subsets of Button

– The floor buttons– The elevator buttons– buttons (the set of all buttons in the elevator problem)– pushed (the set of buttons that have been pushed)

Slide 11.84



Schema Button_State

Slide 11.85



3. Initial State

State when the system is first turned on

Button_Init ≡ [Button_State' | pushed' = ∅]

– (In the above equation, the ≡ should be a = with a ^ on top. Unfortunately, this is hard to type in PowerPoint!)

Slide 11.86



4. Operations

A button pushed for the first time is turned on, and added to set pushedWithout the third precondition, the results would be unspecified

Slide 11.87



If an elevator arrives at a floor, the corresponding button(s) must be turned offThe solution does not distinguish between up and down floor buttons

Slide 11.88


Analysis of Z

Most widely used formal specification language– CICS (part)– Oscilloscope– CASE tool– Large-scale projects (esp. Europe)

Slide 11.89


Analysis of Z (contd)

Difficulties– Symbols– Mathematics

Reasons for great success– Easy to find faults in Z specification– Specifier must be extremely precise– Can prove correctness– Only high-school math needed to read Z– Decreases development time– A “translation” is clearer than informal specification

Slide 11.90


Other Formal Methods

Anna – Ada

Gist, Refine– Knowledge-based

VDM – Denotational semantics

CSP – Sequence of events– Executable specifications– High squiggle factor

Slide 11.91


Comparison of Specification Techniques

We must always choose the appropriate specification methodFormal methods– Powerful– Difficult to learn and use

Informal methods– Little power– Easy to learn and use

Trade-off– Ease of use versus power

Slide 11.92


Comparison of Specification Techniques (contd)

Slide 11.93


Newer Methods

Many are untested in practiceRisks – Training costs– Adjustment from classroom to actual project– CASE tools may not work properly

However, possible gains may be huge

Slide 11.94


Which Specification Method to Use?

Depends on the– Project– Development team– Management team– Myriad other factors

It is unwise to ignore the latest developments

Slide 11.95


Testing during the Specification Phase

Specification inspection– Checklist

Doolan [1992]– 2 million lines of FORTRAN– 1 hour of inspecting saved 30 hours of

execution-based testing

Slide 11.96


CASE Tools for the Specification Phase

Graphical toolData dictionary– Integrate them

Specification method without CASE tools fails– SREM

Slide 11.97


CASE Tools for the Specification Phase

Typical tools– Analyst/Designer– Software through Pictures– System Architect

Slide 11.98


Metrics for the Specification Phase

Five fundamental metricsQuality– Fault statistics– Number, type of each fault– Rate of detection

Metrics for “predicting” size of target product– Total number of items in data dictionary– Number of items of each type– Processes vs. modules

Slide 11.99


Air Gourmet Case Study: Structured Sys. Anal.

Data flow diagram reflects the centrality of SPECIAL MEAL DATA

See Appendix E for the remainder of the structured systems analysis

Slide 11.100


Air Gourmet Case Study: SPMP

The Software Project Management Plan is given in Appendix F

Slide 11.101


Challenges of the Specification Phase

A specification document must be– Informal enough for the client; and– Formal enough for the development team

The specification phase (“what”) should not cross the boundary into the design phase (“how”)Do not try to assign modules to process boxes of DFDs until the design phase

Documents

Slide 11.1 Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering...Slide 11.1 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering Fifth Edition, WCB/McGraw-Hill,