Software product line engineering is about producing a set of related products that share more commonalities than variabilities. Feature models are widely used for variability and commonality management in software product lines. Feature models are information models where a set of products are represented as a set of features in a single model. The automated analysis of feature models deals with the computer–aided extraction of information from feature models. The literature on this topic has contributed with a set of operations, techniques, tools and empirical results which have not been surveyed until now. This paper provides a comprehensive literature review on the automated analysis of feature models 20 years after of their invention. This paper contributes by bringing together previously-disparate streams of work to help shed light on this thriving area. We also present a conceptual framework to understand the different proposals as well as categorise future contributions. We finally discuss the different studies and propose some challenges to be faced in the future.CICYT TIN2009-07366CICYT TIN2006-00472Junta de Andalucía TIC-253

Diversity is prevalent in modern software systems to facilitate adapting the software to customer requirements or the execution environment. Diversity has an impact on all phases of the software development process. Appropriate means and organizational structures are required to deal with the additional complexity introduced by software variability. This introductory article to the special section “Software Diversity—Modeling, Analysis and Evolution” provides an overview of the current state of the art in diverse systems development and discusses challenges and potential solutions. The article covers requirements analysis, design, implementation, verification and validation, maintenance and evolution as well as organizational aspects. It also provides an overview of the articles which are part of this special section and addresses particular issues of diverse systems development.

Software product-lines (SPLs) are software platforms that can be readily reconfigured for different project requirements. A key part of an SPL is a model that captures the rules for reconfiguring the software. SPLs commonly use feature models to capture SPL configuration rules. Each SPL configuration is represented as a selection of features from the feature model. Invalid SPL configurations can be created due to feature conflicts introduced via staged or parallel configuration or changes to the constraints in a feature model. When invalid configurations are created, a method is needed to automate the diagnosis of the errors and repair the feature selections. This paper provides two contributions to research on automated configuration of SPLs. First, it shows how configurations and feature models can be transformed into constraint satisfaction problems to automatically diagnose errors and repair invalid feature selections. Second, it presents empirical results from diagnosing configuration errors in feature models ranging in size from 100 to 5,000 features. The results of our experiments show that our CSP-based diagnostic technique can scale up to models with thousands of features

Feature models are widely used to model software product-line (SPL) variability. SPL variants are configured by selecting feature sets that satisfy feature model constraints. Configuration of large feature models can involve multiple stages and participants, which makes it hard to avoid conflicts and errors. New techniques are therefore needed to debug invalid configurations and derive the minimal set of changes to fix flawed configurations. This paper provides three contributions to debugging feature model configurations: (1) we present a technique for transforming a flawed feature model configuration into a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) and show how a constraint solver can derive the minimal set of feature selection changes to fix an invalid configuration, (2) we show how this diagnosis CSP can automatically resolve conflicts between configuration participant decisions, and (3) we present experiment results that evaluate our technique. These results show that our technique scales to models with over 5,000 features, which is well beyond the size used to validate other automated techniques.