JP2015041285A - Consistency verification device, consistency verification method, and consistency verification program - Google Patents

Abstract

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a consistency verification device, a consistency verification method, and a consistency verification program which are capable of verifying consistency of an arbitrary element between different types of arbitrary diagrams.SOLUTION: A consistency verification device 100 for consistency verification of a model 107 into which one software structure is visualized by a plurality of diagrams, includes: a verification item table 106 which is generated on the basis of meta-models 103 and 104 defining elements included in respective diagrams by meta-model elements and defines associations of meta-model elements consistent between different diagrams as verification items; a model information generation unit which generates a model information table 110 associating the meta-model elements defining the elements included in respective diagrams and values of the elements with each other on the basis of the model 107 and the meta-models 103 and 104; and a verification processing unit 108 which determines whether the model information table 110 includes elements inconsistent with the verification item table 106 or not on the basis of the verification item table 106 and the model information table 110.

Description

  The present invention relates to a consistency verification apparatus, a consistency verification method, and a consistency verification program for verifying the consistency of a model that visualizes an S / W (software) structure.

As a technique for visualizing the S / W structure during S / W development, there is a method using UML (Unified / Modeling / Language).
UML defines various notation methods for diagrams (diagrams) representing S / W structures, and is used for S / W design and analysis.

By taking the consistency of a plurality of UML models, it can be used for large-scale S / W development combining separately developed S / Ws.
On the other hand, if development proceeds in a state where inconsistencies exist among a plurality of UML models, there is a possibility that rework may occur in a later process, leading to a delay in the process.

Since there is a degree of freedom in the description of UML, inconsistencies may occur in a plurality of models if the description policy is different. For example, if there is a mismatch in the description policy such as the name of an element such as a class / method or the type of a variable / argument does not match, a mismatch may occur in a plurality of models.
However, in UML, it is difficult for humans to completely eliminate inconsistencies when writing models, and for humans to compare a plurality of models and find inconsistencies between models.

  In Patent Document 1, it is possible to verify whether the UML model conforms to the specifications of the UML metamodel or conforms to a generally well-known modeling rule.

JP 2010-86066 A

In Patent Document 1, there is a problem that consistency between different types of diagrams cannot be verified.
In addition, there is a problem that the person in charge of the model cannot set the consistency rule independently.

  An object of the present invention is to provide a consistency verification apparatus, a consistency verification method, and a consistency verification program that can verify the consistency of an arbitrary element between arbitrary different types of diagrams, for example. .

Consistency verification device according to the present invention,
In a consistency verification device that verifies the consistency between a plurality of diagrams for a model in which one software structure is visualized by a plurality of diagrams,
A verification item table is created based on a meta model that defines the elements included in each diagram of the plurality of diagrams by a meta model element, and the correspondence of meta model elements that match between different diagram is defined as a verification item. A verification item table storage unit stored in the device;
Based on the model and the metamodel, a correspondence table generation unit that generates a correspondence table in which a metamodel element that defines an element included in each diagram of the plurality of diagrams and a value of the element are associated with each other ,
And a verification processing unit that determines whether or not there is an element that does not match the verification item table in the correspondence table based on the verification item table and the correspondence table.

  According to one aspect of the present invention, a verification item table that is created based on a meta model and defines a correspondence between meta model elements that match between different diagrams as a verification item, a meta model element that defines an element, Based on the correspondence table in which the values of the elements are associated, the processing device determines whether there is an element that does not match the verification item table in the correspondence table. Thus, there is an effect that the consistency with respect to an arbitrary element can be verified.

1 is a block diagram showing a configuration of a consistency verification device 100 according to Embodiment 1. FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a hardware configuration of a consistency verification device 100 according to Embodiment 1. FIG. It is a figure which shows an example of a structure of the verification item 106 which concerns on Embodiment 1. FIG. It is an example of the metamodel (element definition) 103 concerning Embodiment 1, and is a figure which shows a class diagram metamodel. It is an example of the metamodel (element definition) 103 concerning Embodiment 1, and is a figure which shows a sequence diagram metamodel. It is an example of the metamodel (element definition) 103 according to the first embodiment, and is a diagram illustrating a state machine diagram metamodel. It is an example (partial excerpt) of the metamodel (notation definition) 104 according to the first embodiment, and shows a metamodel (notation definition) of a class diagram. It is an example of the model 107 which concerns on Embodiment 1, and is a figure which shows a class diagram. It is an example of the model 107 which concerns on Embodiment 1, and is a figure which shows a sequence diagram. It is an example of the model 107 which concerns on Embodiment 1, and is a figure which shows a state machine diagram. It is a figure which shows an example of a structure of the model information table 110 which concerns on Embodiment 1. FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing consistency verification processing by the verification processing unit 108 according to the first embodiment. 4 is a flowchart showing consistency verification processing by the verification processing unit 108 according to the first embodiment. It is a figure which shows an example of a structure of the violation result table | surface 109 which concerns on Embodiment 1. FIG. It is a block block diagram which shows the consistency verification apparatus 100a which concerns on Embodiment 2. FIG. It is a figure which shows an example of the verification object table | surface 121 which concerns on Embodiment 2. FIG. It is a figure which shows an example of the metamodel corresponding | compatible table 122 which concerns on Embodiment 2. FIG. It is a block block diagram which shows the consistency verification apparatus 100b which concerns on Embodiment 3. FIG. It is a figure which shows an example of the designation | designated location 117 which concerns on Embodiment 3. FIG.

Embodiment 1 FIG.
FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration of consistency verification apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment. The consistency verification apparatus 100 verifies the consistency between a plurality of diagrams for a model 107 in which one software structure is visualized by a plurality of diagrams (diagrams). The model 107 is, for example, UML. The consistency verification apparatus 100 is an apparatus having a function of reading and verifying consistency verification items defined at the definition level (meta level) of the model 107.

In FIG. 1, the consistency verification apparatus 100 includes a model information generation unit 105, a verification processing unit 108, and a list display unit 114.
In addition, a model 107 to be verified by a user and a meta model (element definition) 103 and a meta model (notation definition) 104 that are definitions of the model 107 are stored in the storage device in advance. The metamodel (element definition) 103 and the metamodel (notation definition) 104 may be simply referred to as a metamodel.
In the meta model, elements included in each of a plurality of diagrams are defined by meta model meta model elements (also referred to as meta model element names).

The user specifies the item to be verified as the verification item 106 and stores it in the storage device in advance. Alternatively, when the consistency verification device 100 is activated, a verification item input screen for inputting an item to be verified may be displayed on the display device, and the verification item input by the user may be stored as a verification item 106 in the storage device.
The verification item 106 (verification item table) is created by the user based on the meta model. In the verification item 106 (verification item table), elements that match between different diagrams are defined using correspondence of metamodel elements. For example, the verification item 106 is stored in the storage device by the verification item table storage unit.

The model information generation unit 105 reads the model 107, the metamodel (element definition) 103, and the metamodel (notation definition) 104 from the storage device. The model information generation unit 5 generates and outputs a model information table 110 from which information to be verified is extracted by a processing device.
Based on the model 107 and the metamodel (metamodel (element definition) 103, metamodel (notation definition) 104), the model information generation unit 105 defines a metamodel element that defines an element in the metamodel, an element value, 3 is an example of a correspondence table generation unit that generates a model information table 110 (correspondence table) in which the items are associated with each other.

The verification processing unit 108 reads the verification items 106 stored in the storage device and the model information table 110 output from the model information generation unit 105. Based on the verification item 106 and the model information table 110 that have been read, the verification processing unit 108 includes the verification item in the row of the model information table 110 (correspondence between the metamodel element that defines the element and the value of the element). Whether or not there is a row (element) that does not match 106 is determined by the processing device.
The verification processing unit 108 extracts a positive element that is a verification source and an element that is a verification target from the verification item 106, and sets the value of the positive element and the verification target from the model information table 110 based on the extraction result. Extract the element value.

The verification processing unit 108 outputs, as the violation result table 109, a list of rows (elements) determined not to match the verification item 106 among the rows of the model information table 110 (correspondence between the meta model elements and the element values). . That is, the verification processing unit 108 extracts violations from the extracted values, and generates and outputs the violation result table 109 by the processing device.
The list display unit 114 receives the violation result table 9 from the verification processing unit 108 and displays it on the display device in a list format.

FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a hardware configuration of the consistency verification apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment.
A hardware configuration example of the consistency verification apparatus 100 will be described with reference to FIG.

  The consistency verification apparatus 100 includes a computer, and each element of the consistency verification apparatus 100 can be realized by a program.

  As a hardware configuration of the consistency verification device 100, an arithmetic device 901, an external storage device 902, a main storage device 903, a communication device 904, and an input / output device 905 are connected to the bus.

The arithmetic device 901 is a CPU (Central Processing Unit) that executes a program.
The external storage device 902 is, for example, a ROM (Read Only Memory), a flash memory, or a hard disk device. The hard disk 120 is an example of the external storage device 902.
The main storage device 903 is a RAM (Random / Access / Memory).

  The communication device 904 is, for example, a communication board or the like, and is connected to a LAN (Local / Area / Network) or the like. The communication device 904 is not limited to a LAN, but is an IP-VPN (Internet / Protocol / Virtual / Private / Network), a wide-area LAN, an ATM (Asynchronous / Transfer / Mode) network, a WAN (Wide / Area / Network), or the Internet. It does not matter if it is connected to. LAN, WAN, and the Internet are examples of networks.

  The input / output device 905 is, for example, a mouse, a keyboard, a display device, or the like. Instead of the mouse, a touch panel, touch pad, trackball, pen tablet, or other pointing device may be used. The display device may be an LCD (Liquid / Crystal / Display), a CRT (Cathode / Ray / Tube), or another display device. The display 130 is an example of a display device.

The program is normally stored in the external storage device 902, and is loaded into the main storage device 903 and sequentially read into the arithmetic device 901 and executed.
The program is a program that realizes a function described as “unit” shown in FIG.
Further, an operating system (OS) is also stored in the external storage device 902. At least a part of the OS is loaded into the main storage device 903. ”Is executed.
An application program is also stored in the external storage device 902, and is sequentially executed by the arithmetic device 901 while being loaded in the main storage device 903.
Information such as “˜table” is also stored in the external storage device 902.

In the description of the present embodiment, “determining”, “determining”, “extracting”, “detecting”, “setting”, “registering”, “selecting” ”,“ Generation of ”,“ Input of ”,“ Output of ”,“ Table ”, etc. Information, data, signal values, and variable values indicating the results of processing are stored in the main memory 903. Stored as a file.
Further, data received by the consistency verification device 100 is stored in the main storage device 903.
Further, the encryption key / decryption key, random number value, and parameter may be stored in the main storage device 903 as a file.

  2 is merely an example of the hardware configuration of the consistency verification device 100, and the hardware configuration of the consistency verification device 100 is not limited to the configuration described in FIG. There may be.

FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of the verification item 106 according to the present embodiment.
The verification item 106 specifies a metamodel element (metamodel element name) that is positive in the consistency verification and a metamodel element that is a verification target.
The verification item 106 includes items of “verification source match condition 1”, “verification source match condition 2”, “verification source”, “verification target match condition 1”, “verification target match condition 2”, and “verification target”. Is done.
Assuming that “verification source matching condition 1” and “verification target matching condition 1”, “verification source matching condition 2”, and “verification target matching condition 2” match, ”,“ Verification object ”to be verified. “Verification source match condition 1”, “verification target match condition 1”, “verification source match condition 2”, and “verification target match condition 2” are not essential. If it is not set, “-(hyphen)” is entered.

A specific example of the verification item 6 will be described with reference to FIG.
For example, the first line indicates that “Note.ClassDiagram”, which is “verification source matching condition 1”, and “Interaction.name”, which is “verification target matching condition 1”, must match as a precondition. Yes. If they match, “Class.name” that is “verification source” is positive, and “Interaction.message.receiveEvent.covered.name” that is “verification target” is to be verified.

  The meta model (element definition) 103 defines each element described in the diagram by a meta level meta model element. A typical example is a UML metamodel.

FIG. 4 is an example (partially extracted) of the meta model (element definition) 103 according to the present embodiment, and is a diagram illustrating a class diagram meta model.
FIG. 5 is an example (partially extracted) of the meta model (element definition) 103 according to the present embodiment, and is a diagram illustrating a sequence diagram meta model.
FIG. 6 is an example (partially extracted) of the metamodel (element definition) 103 according to the present embodiment, and is a diagram showing a state machine diagram metamodel.

A metamodel (notation definition) 104 defines a notation described by a diagram. Specifically, the notation of each element defined in the metamodel (element definition) 103 is defined. A typical example is a UML metamodel.
FIG. 7 is a meta model (notation definition) 104 (partially extracted) according to the present embodiment, and shows a meta model (notation definition) of a class diagram.

FIG. 8 is an example of the model 107 according to the present embodiment and is a diagram illustrating a class diagram.
FIG. 9 is an example of the model 107 according to the present embodiment, and is a diagram illustrating a sequence diagram.
FIG. 10 is an example of the model 107 according to the present embodiment, and is a diagram illustrating a state machine diagram.

The model 107 is created using a metamodel (element definition) 103 and a metamodel (notation definition) 104. The meta model (element definition) 103 and the meta model (notation definition) 104 are collectively referred to as a meta model.
8 to 10 are diagrams showing an example of the model 107 created from the UML metamodel, and show a class diagram, a sequence diagram, and a state machine diagram.
In FIG. 8, the class diagram name is defined using the comment function. This is because an element having a class diagram name is not defined on the UML metamodel. Therefore, in this example, the meta model is extended and the element definition is “Note.ClassDiagram”.

FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of the model information table 110 according to the present embodiment.
The model information table 110 is generated by the model information generation unit 105.

  The model information table 110 includes “element 1”, “element 2” which are values corresponding to “metamodel element 1 type”, “metamodel element 2 types”, and “metamodel element 3 types” indicating metamodel elements. ”And“ Element 3 ”. Further, the relationship of “metamodel element 1 type” holds “metamodel element 2 types”, and “metamodel element 2 types” holds “metamodel element 3 types”.

In the following, model information generation unit 105 receives model 7 and meta model (element definition) 103 ”and“ meta model (notation definition) 104 ”as input, and outputs model information output processing (correspondence table) for“ model information table 110 ”. Generation processing) will be described.
The model information generation unit 105 generates the model information table 110 by the following procedure using the processing device.

(1) The model information generation unit 105 is defined with respect to the “model 107” by an element value obtained based on the “metamodel (notation definition) 104” and the “metamodel (element definition) 103”. Take correspondence with the metamodel elements.
(2) The model information generation unit 105 selects the “metamodel element 1 type”, “metamodel element 2 type”, or “metamodel element 3” in the “model information table 110” as the metamodel element that has taken the correspondence in (1). Set to Type. Next, the corresponding values are set to “element 1”, “element 2”, or “element 3”, respectively.
Here, the model information generation unit 105 outputs the model information table 110 according to the following rules. It is a rule that “metamodel element 1 type” holds “metamodel element 2 types” and “metamodel element 2 types” holds “metamodel element 3 types”.

12 and 13 are flowcharts showing the consistency verification processing by the verification processing unit 108 according to the present embodiment. The flowchart is executed for each row of the verification item 106.
The consistency verification process (verification process) by the verification processing unit 108 will be described with reference to FIGS. 12 and 13.

In S101, the verification processing unit 108 matches the model information that matches the “verification source match condition 1”, “verification source match condition 2”, and “verification source” of the processing target row (processing target row) of the “verification item 106”. Extract the rows of Table 110. The verification source row of the model information table 110 extracted by the verification processing unit 108 is referred to as a verification source table 10.
This will be described using a specific example. For example, the processing target row of “verification item 106” is the first row. At this time, “verification source match condition 1”, “verification source match condition 2”, and “verification source” are “Note.ClassDiagram”, “−”, and “Class.name”. Therefore, the verification processing unit 108 extracts the first row and the second row of the model information table 110 as the rows of the model information table 110 corresponding to the first row of the processing target rows. The first and second rows of the model information table 110 become the verification source table 10.

In S102, the verification processing unit 108 extracts the rows of the model information table 110 that match the “verification target matching condition 1”, “verification target matching condition 2”, and “verification target” of the processing target row of the “verification item 106”. To do. The verification target row of the model information table 110 extracted by the verification processing unit 108 is set as a verification source table 10.
In the specific example, when the processing target row of “verification item 106” is the first row, “verification target matching condition 1”, “verification target matching condition 2”, and “verification target” are “Interaction.name”, “− "Interaction.message.receiveEvent.covered.name". Therefore, the verification processing unit 108 extracts the fourth and sixth rows of the model information table 110 as the rows of the model information table 110 corresponding to the first row of the processing target rows. The fourth row and the sixth row of the model information table 110 become the verification target extraction table 20.

Next, the verification processing unit 108 processes each row of the verification target extraction table 20.
In step S <b> 103, the verification processing unit 108 determines whether all rows of the verification target extraction table 20 have been processed. If the verification processing unit 108 determines that all rows of the verification target extraction table 20 have been processed (YES in S103), the processing ends. If the verification processing unit 108 determines that there is an unprocessed row in the verification target extraction table 20 (NO in S103), the verification processing unit 108 proceeds to S104.

  In S <b> 104, the verification processing unit 108 selects one row to be processed from the verification target extraction table 20. Then, the verification processing unit 108 determines whether or not the selected row meets the following conditions (a) to (c) (S105 to S107).

Condition determination of (a):
In S <b> 105, the verification processing unit 108 makes the following determination for one row selected from the verification target extraction table 20. Meta model element specified by “Verification source match condition 1” (“Meta model element 1 type” column, “Meta model element 2 type” column or “Meta model element 3 type” column of “Extracted verification source table 10” ) (The “element 1” column, the “element 2” column, or the “element 3” column of the extracted verification source table 10) and the metamodel element (“extraction”) specified by the “verification target matching condition 1” Of the “examined verification target extraction table 20” in the “metamodel element 1 type” column, “metamodel element 2 type” column or “metamodel element 3 type” column) It is determined whether the “element 1” column, “element 2” column, or “element 3” column) are equal.

Specifically, “Verification source match condition 1” and “Note. Class Diagram” in the first row of the verification target extraction table 20 (corresponding to the fourth row of the model information table 110) are “sample” and “extracted verification” “Note.ClassDiagram” of the first row of the original table 10 (corresponding to the first row of the model information table 110) is “sample”, and it is determined that the values are equal.
If it is determined in S105 that the values are not equal, the process returns to S103.
If it is determined in S105 that the values are equal, the process proceeds to S106.

  When the extracted verification source table 10 has a plurality of rows, the verification processing unit 108 performs processing until a row determined to be equal is found, and determines that the values are not equal when there is no row determined to be equal. . For example, when the determination in S106 described below is performed, the determination is performed only for the row of the verification source table 10 in which the determination in S105 is equal.

Condition determination of (b):
In S <b> 106, the verification processing unit 108 makes the following determination for the one row selected from the verification target extraction table 20.
In S <b> 106, the verification processing unit 108 makes the following determination for the one row selected from the verification target extraction table 20. Meta model element specified by “Verification source match condition 2” (“Meta model element 1 type” column, “Meta model element 2 type” column or “Meta model element 3 type” column of “Extracted verification source table 10” ) (The “element 1” column, the “element 2” column, or the “element 3” column in the extracted verification source table 10) and the metamodel element (“extraction”) specified by the “verification target matching condition 2” Of the “examined verification target extraction table 20” in the “metamodel element 1 type” column, “metamodel element 2 type” column or “metamodel element 3 type” column) It is determined whether the “element 1” column, “element 2” column, or “element 3” column) are equal.

Specifically, it is “verification source match condition 2” “−” in the first row of the verification target extraction table 20 (corresponding to the fourth row of the model information table 110), and the “first verification source table 10”. Since it is “verification source match condition 2” “−” in one row (corresponding to the first row of the model information table 110), it is not necessary to determine the condition and it is determined that the values are equal.
If it is determined in S106 that the values are not equal, the process returns to S103.
If it is determined in S106 that the values are equal, the process proceeds to S107.

Condition determination of (c):
In step S <b> 107, the verification processing unit 108 makes the following determination on the one row selected from the verification target extraction table 20.
In step S <b> 107, the verification processing unit 108 makes the following determination on the one row selected from the verification target extraction table 20. Corresponds to the meta model element specified in “Verification source” (“Meta model element 1 type” column, “Meta model element 2 type” column or “Meta model element 3 type” column of “Extracted verification source table 10”) Value (the “element 1” column, the “element 2” column, or the “element 3” column of the extracted verification source table 10) and the metamodel element specified by the “verification target” (“the extracted verification target extraction table 20 "Metamodel element 1 type" column, "metamodel element 2 types" column or "metamodel element 3 types" column) ("element 1" column of "extracted verification target extraction table 20" or It is determined whether the “element 2” column or the “element 3” column is equal.

Specifically, “verification target” “Class.name” in the first row of the verification target extraction table 20 (corresponding to the fourth row of the model information table 110) has a value of “Class B” and “extracted verification source” Since the value of “verification source” “Class.name” in the second row of “Table 10” (corresponding to the second row of the model information table 110) is “Class B”, it is determined that the values are equal.
If it is determined in S106 that the values are not equal, it means that the verification result is a violation and the process proceeds to S108.
If it is determined in S106 that the values are equal, the process returns to S103.

In S108, the verification processing unit 108 generates a violation result table 109 including a row of the verification target extraction table 20 in which the verification result is a violation (that is, a row corresponding to the conditions of S105, S106, and S107). When the violation result table 109 has already been generated, the verification processing unit 108 reads the row of the verification target extraction table 20 in which the verification result is determined to be a violation (that is, the row corresponding to the conditions of S105, S106, and S107). Is added to the violation result table 109 ”.
As described above, as a result of the verification processing by the verification processing unit 108, the verification processing unit 108 generates and outputs the violation result table 109.
The list display unit 114 displays the violation result table 109 output from the verification processing unit 108 on the display device.

FIG. 14 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of the violation result table 109 according to the present embodiment.
As illustrated in FIG. 14, the configuration of the violation result table 109 is the same as the configuration of the model information table 110.

As described above, the consistency verification apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment is a model that expresses the structure and behavior of S / W, and based on the rule (metamodel) that defines how to write, the consistency between the two models. Verification of the consistency of the model created by the user (designer) is executed using the verification items defining the sex location.
Therefore, the consistency verification apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment includes a model information generation unit that is a target of consistency verification from a model, and verification that detects a location that violates consistency from the model information table and verification items. A processing unit and list display means for displaying violation results are provided.

  According to the consistency verification apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment, it is possible to verify the consistency of an arbitrary element between arbitrary different types of diagrams. Therefore, the consistency of elements between models set by the user It is possible to automate the verification of the model and to improve the efficiency of the consistency verification work between the models.

Embodiment 2. FIG.
In the present embodiment, differences from the first embodiment will be mainly described.
In the first embodiment, when “metamodel (element definition) 103” and “metamodel (notation definition) 104” are changed, it is necessary to change the description of “verification item 106”. In the present embodiment, a function for performing consistency verification by automatically generating verification items 106 even when the metamodel is changed will be described.

FIG. 15 is a block diagram showing a consistency verification apparatus 100a according to the present embodiment.
Components having the same functions as those described in Embodiment 1 may be denoted by the same reference numerals and description thereof may be omitted.

  As shown in FIG. 15, the consistency verification device 100a includes a verification target table 121, a metamodel correspondence table 122, and a verification item generation unit 124 in addition to the consistency verification device 100 shown in FIG.

  The verification target table 121 includes “verification source match condition 1” and “verification source match condition 2” that are preconditions of elements that are positive in the consistency verification, “verification source” that is a positive element, and verification target elements It consists of “verification target matching condition 1”, “verification target matching condition 2”, which are preconditions, and an element “verification target” to be verified. The verification target table 121 is a table that defines correspondence between elements that are positive in the consistency verification and elements that are verification targets by using information higher than the meta model element at the meta level.

FIG. 16 is a diagram showing an example of the verification target table 121 according to this embodiment.
In row 4 of the verification target table 121, the “method name” is assumed to be positive and the “sequence model name” and “class” of the sequence model are premised on the assumption that “state machine model name” and “class name” are equal in the state machine model. This indicates that “method name” equal to “name” is to be verified.
These definitions based on the “state machine model name”, “class name”, “sequence model name”, “method name”, and the like are definitions based on information higher than the meta model element at the meta level, for example, the model name “ It is composed of “model name”, “element name” which is an element name, and “member name” which is a member of an element, and defines a location to be matched between different diagrams.

The meta model correspondence table 122 includes information higher than the meta model meta model elements, “meta model definition elements” that are meta model elements defined in the meta model, and “meta model definition members that are members defined in the meta model. ”.
That is, the model name “model name”, the element name “element name”, the element member “member name”, the metamodel element defined in the metamodel “metamodel definition element”, meta A “meta model definition member” that is a member defined in the model is associated with the model. The metamodel correspondence table 122 is a table that defines a correspondence between a combination of “model name”, “element name”, and “member name” and a combination of “metamodel definition element” and “member model definition member”.
Therefore, even if the metamodel element is changed, the verification item 106 can be generated by changing the “metamodel definition element” and “member model definition member” of the metamodel correspondence table 122.

FIG. 17 is a diagram showing an example of the metamodel correspondence table 122 according to the present embodiment.
For example, row 3 of the metamodel correspondence table 122 indicates that the combination of “class model name”, “class name”, and “method name” corresponds to “Class.Operation.name” of the metamodel definition. .

Next, the operation of the verification item generation unit 124 will be described.
The verification item generation unit 124 generates the “verification item 106” using the “verification target table 121” and the “metamodel correspondence table 122”.
The verification item generation method by the verification item generation unit 124 is realized by executing the following procedures (1) to (4) for all the rows of the “verification target table 121”. For example, the verification item generation unit 124 implements the verification condition addition processing by executing the verification item generation program using hardware resources such as a processing device.

(1) The verification item generation unit 124 includes a combination of “verification source match condition 1”, “verification source match condition 2”, and “verification source” in the “verification target table 121”, and “metamodel correspondence table 122” “ A row having the same combination of “model name”, “element name”, and “member name” is extracted from the “metamodel correspondence table 122”. The extracted line is set as a verification source extraction line 125.
For example, as a specific example, when processing is performed on row 2 of the verification target table 121, the combination of “verification source match condition 1”, “verification source match condition 2”, and “verification source” is “class model name”, “class name” And “method name”, line 3 of “metamodel correspondence table 122” is extracted as verification source extraction line 125.

(2) The value of “metamodel definition element” in the verification source extraction line 125 is set to “verification source” of “verification item 106”. In the verification item 106, a line in which a value is set in “verification source” is set as a setting line 1061. In the setting row 1061, “verification source match condition 1” and “verification source match condition 2” are also set.
In the specific example, since the value of the “metamodel definition element” in the verification source extraction line 125 is “Class.Operation.name”, “Class.Operation.name” is set to “Verification item 106” (see FIG. 3). Set to “verification source” in the row 1061. “Class model name” and “class name” are also set in “verification source match condition 1” and “verification source match condition 2” in the setting line 1061.

(3) A combination of “verification target matching condition 1”, “verification target matching condition 2”, “verification target” in “verification target table 121”, “model designation”, “element designation” in “metamodel correspondence table 122” ”And“ Member designation ”are extracted from the“ metamodel correspondence table 122 ”. The extracted row is set as a verification target extraction row 126.
For example, as a specific example, when processing is performed on row 2 of the verification target table 121, the combination of “verification target matching condition 1”, “verification target matching condition 2”, and “verification target” is “sequence model name”, “class name” ”And“ method name ”, the row 6 of the“ metamodel correspondence table 122 ”is extracted as the verification target extraction row 126.

  (4) The value of the “metamodel definition element” in the verification target extraction line 126 is set to “verification target” in the setting line 1061 of the “verification item 106”. In the setting row 1061, “verification target matching condition 1” and “verification target matching condition 2” are also set.

  In the specific example, since the value of the “metamodel definition element” in the verification target extraction line 126 is “Interaction.message.name”, “Interaction.message.name” is set to the above-mentioned “Verification item 106” (see FIG. 3). Set to “verification target” in the setting line 1061. “Sequence model name” and “class name” are also set in “verification target matching condition 1” and “verification target matching condition 2” in the setting line 1061.

  Since the consistency verification apparatus 100a according to the present embodiment creates the metamodel correspondence table 122 by the function for specifying correspondence between verification items and metamodel elements, it can be made independent of a specific metamodel.

  According to the consistency verification apparatus 100a according to the present embodiment, when the meta model is changed by describing the correspondence between the verification target element defined by the information higher than the meta level and the meta model information at the meta level. The correction of the verification items can be omitted, and the verification work can be made more efficient.

Embodiment 3 FIG.
In the present embodiment, differences from Embodiments 1 and 2 will be mainly described.
In the first embodiment, the alignment violation location is output in a table format, and the correspondence relationship with the model 107 is not displayed. In this embodiment, a function of automatically highlighting a violation location on the model 107 will be described.

FIG. 18 is a block configuration diagram showing the consistency verification apparatus 100b according to the present embodiment.
Components having the same functions as those described in Embodiment 1 may be denoted by the same reference numerals and description thereof may be omitted.

  As shown in FIG. 18, the consistency verification device 100 b includes an input specification 115, a specified location generation unit 119, a specified location 117, and a highlight display unit 116 in addition to the consistency verification device 100 shown in FIG. 1.

  The input designation 115 designates a violation part to be highlighted in the model 107. For example, the consistency verification device 100b includes an input designation receiving unit, and the input designation receiving unit displays a highlight location designation screen on the display device. The input designation accepting unit accepts a highlight location (element name) input by the user on the highlight location designation screen, and stores the received highlight location (element name) as the input designation 115 in the storage device. . For example, the user designates “Class A” for the class name. Multiple specification is also possible.

The designated location generation unit 119 inputs the violation result table 109 (see FIG. 14) and the input designation 115. The designated location generation unit 119 adds the “designated element type” designated by the input designation 1152 to the violation result table 109, creates the designated location 117, and stores it in the storage device. The “designated element type” contains the metamodel element of the element designated by “input designation 115”.
The designated location generation unit 119 filters the violation result table 109 according to the input designation 15, and obtains a designated location 117 as a result of the filtering.

  The designated location generation unit 119 inputs the input designation 115 and the violation result table 109 and outputs the designated location 117. The designated location generation unit 119 creates the designated location 117 based on the input designation 115 and the violation result table 109 by the following procedures (1) to (3).

Processing procedures (1) to (3) are as follows.
(1) The designated location generation unit 119 extracts, from the violation result table 109, a row in which the element name included in the input designation 115 corresponds to “element 1”, “element 2”, or “element 3”.
(2) The designated location generation unit 119 outputs the line extracted in (1) above.
(3) The designated location generation unit 119 adds an item column of “designated element type” to the line output in (2) above. The designated location generation unit 119 sets the value of “metamodel element 1 type” when the corresponding column is “element 1”, the value of “metamodel element 2 types” when “column 2”, and the “element 3” In the case of “”, the value of “3 types of meta model elements” is output to “Specified element type”.

  FIG. 19 is a diagram showing an example of the designated place 117 according to the present embodiment.

  The highlight display unit 116 receives the model 107, the meta model (notation definition) 104, the violation result table 109, and the designated portion 117 as inputs, and sets the “designated element type” for the model displayed on the display screen of the display device. Highlight the specific location in question.

The highlight display unit 116 executes the following processes (1) and (2) for each row of “designated place 117” (see FIG. 19).
(1) The highlight display unit 116 selects “metamodel (notation definition) for the notation corresponding to“ one type of metamodel element ”,“ two types of metamodel element ”, and“ three types of metamodel element ”of“ designated location 117 ”. ) 104 ”.

  (2) The highlight display unit 116 extracts locations corresponding to the following conditions from the “model 107”. A location where each value of “model 107” described in the notation acquired in (1) is the same as the value of “designated location 117” is extracted. Specifically, the value of “model 107” and the value of “element 1” described in the notation corresponding to “one type of metamodel element” of “designated location 117” in (1) are the same, and “ The value of “Model 107” and the value of “Element 2” described in the notation corresponding to “Meta model element 2 types” of “Specified location 117” are the same, and “Meta model element 3 types of“ Specified location 117 ” ”Where the value of“ Model 107 ”described in the notation corresponding to“ and the value of “Element 3” is the same.

  (3) The highlight display unit 116 displays the meta model element type corresponding to the “designated element type” of the “designated location 117” on the “model 107” extracted in (2) above. To highlight.

The consistency verification apparatus 100b according to the present embodiment includes a highlight location designation function that automatically highlights a specific violation location on the model diagram.
According to the consistency verification apparatus 100b according to the present embodiment, the work efficiency for checking the violation location is promoted, and further the efficiency of the verification work can be improved.

  In the description of the above embodiment, the consistency verification apparatuses 100, 100a, and 100b are configured by being divided into a plurality of functional blocks. However, the configuration of the functional blocks is not limited to the above embodiment, and any other combination A functional block may be configured.

As mentioned above, although Embodiment 1-3 of this invention was demonstrated, you may implement one part among this embodiment. Or you may implement combining two or more parts among this embodiment.
The above-described embodiments are essentially preferable examples, and are not intended to limit the scope of the present invention, its application, and uses, and various modifications can be made as necessary. .

  10 verification source table, 20 verification target extraction table, 100, 100a, 100b consistency verification device, 103 metamodel (element definition), 104 metamodel (notation definition), 105 model information generation unit, 106 verification item, 107 model, 108 verification processing unit, 110 model information table, 114 list display unit, 116 highlight display unit, 115 input specification, 117 specified location, 121 verification target table, 122 metamodel correspondence table, 124 verification item generation unit, 125 verification source extraction Line 126, extraction target for verification, 901 arithmetic device, 902 external storage device, 903 main storage device, 904 communication device, 905 input / output device, 1061 setting line.

Claims (6)

In a consistency verification device that verifies the consistency between a plurality of diagrams for a model in which one software structure is visualized by a plurality of diagrams,
A verification item table is created based on a meta model that defines the elements included in each diagram of the plurality of diagrams by a meta model element, and the correspondence of meta model elements that match between different diagram is defined as a verification item. A verification item table storage unit stored in the device;
Based on the model and the metamodel, a correspondence table generation unit that generates a correspondence table in which a metamodel element that defines an element included in each diagram of the plurality of diagrams and a value of the element are associated with each other ,
A matching processing unit comprising: a verification processing unit that determines, based on the verification item table and the correspondence table, whether or not there is an element that does not match the verification item table in the correspondence table; Sex verification device. The verification processing unit
A list of elements determined not to match the verification item table in the correspondence table is output as a violation result table,
The consistency verification device according to claim 1, further comprising a list display unit that displays the violation result table output by the verification processing unit on a display device. A verification target table storage unit that stores a verification target table that defines a location to be matched between the different diagrams;
For a location defined in the verification target table, a metamodel correspondence table storage unit that stores a metamodel correspondence table in which the metamodel elements are associated,
The consistency verification apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a verification item generation unit that generates the verification item table based on the verification target table and the metamodel correspondence table.   A highlight display unit that displays the model on a display device and highlights a portion corresponding to an element that is determined not to match the verification item table among the models displayed on the display device. The consistency verification apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: In the consistency verification method of the consistency verification apparatus for verifying the consistency between the plurality of diagrams for a model in which one software structure is visualized by a plurality of diagrams,
Correspondence that associates a metamodel element that defines the element and a value of the element based on the model and a metamodel that defines an element included in each diagram of the plurality of diagrams by a metamodel element A correspondence table generation step for generating a table;
A verification item table created based on the meta model and defined as verification items corresponding to meta model elements that match between different diagrams, and the verification item table in the correspondence table based on the correspondence table And a verification processing step for determining by a processing device whether or not there is an element that does not match the above. In a consistency verification program to be executed by a consistency verification apparatus, which is a computer for verifying the consistency between a plurality of diagrams, for a model in which one software structure is visualized by a plurality of diagrams,
Correspondence that associates a metamodel element that defines the element and a value of the element based on the model and a metamodel that defines an element included in each diagram of the plurality of diagrams by a metamodel element A correspondence table generation process for generating a table;
A verification item table created based on the meta model and defined as verification items corresponding to meta model elements that match between different diagrams, and the verification item table in the correspondence table based on the correspondence table And a verification process for determining by a processing device whether or not there is an element that does not match.