Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
184 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Integrating Static Code Analysis Toolchains (2403.05986v1)

Published 9 Mar 2024 in cs.SE

Abstract: This paper proposes an approach for a tool-agnostic and heterogeneous static code analysis toolchain in combination with an exchange format. This approach enhances both traceability and comparability of analysis results. State of the art toolchains support features for either test execution and build automation or traceability between tests, requirements and design information. Our approach combines all those features and extends traceability to the source code level, incorporating static code analysis. As part of our approach we introduce the "ASSUME Static Code Analysis tool exchange format" that facilitates the comparability of different static code analysis results. We demonstrate how this approach enhances the usability and efficiency of static code analysis in a development process. On the one hand, our approach enables the exchange of results and evaluations between static code analysis tools. On the other hand, it enables a complete traceability between requirements, designs, implementation, and the results of static code analysis. Within our approach we also propose an OSLC specification for static code analysis tools and an OSLC communication framework.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (9)
  1. ITEA, “ASSUME: Affordable Safe & Secure Mobility Evolution,” https://itea3.org/project/assume.html, Sep 2015.
  2. G. Macher, M. Bachinger, and M. Stolz, “Embedded multi-core system for design of next generation powertrain control units,” in 2017 13th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC), Sept 2017, pp. 66–72.
  3. J. Mössinger, “Software in automotive systems,” IEEE Software, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 92–94, March 2010.
  4. J. El-khoury, D. Gürdür, and M. Nyberg, “A model-driven engineering approach to software tool interoperability based on linked data,” vol. 9, pp. 248–259, 01 2016.
  5. A. Fatima, S. Bibi, and R. Hanif, “Comparative study on static code analysis tools for c/c++,” in 2018 15th International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology (IBCAST), Jan 2018, pp. 465–469.
  6. M. Soares and J. Vrancken, “Model-driven user requirements specification using SysML,” Journal of Software, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 57–68, 2008.
  7. IBM, “Rational DOORS: A requirements management tool for systems and advanced IT applications,” 2011.
  8. S. Patni, “Pro restful apis : Design, build and integrate with rest, json, xml and jax-rs,” Berkeley, CA, 2017.
  9. “Oslc specifications,” http://open-services.net/specifications/, 2018, accessed: 2018-08-29.
Citations (4)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.