Design by contract

Design by Contract (DbC) or Programming by Contract is an approach to designing computer software. It prescribes that software designers should define formal, precise and verifiable interface specifications for software components, which extend the ordinary definition of abstract data types with preconditions, postconditions and invariants. These specifications are referred to as "contracts", in accordance with a conceptual metaphor with the conditions and obligations of business contracts.

Design by Contract is a registered trademark^[1] of Eiffel Software in the United States. Other names are used where trademark infringement need be avoided. Microsoft calls its implementation 'Code Contracts'^[2].

History

The term was coined by Bertrand Meyer in connection with his design of the Eiffel programming language and first described in various articles starting in 1986^[3][4][5] and the two successive editions (1988, 1997) of his book Object-Oriented Software Construction. Eiffel Software applied for trademark registration for Design by Contract in December 2003, and it was granted in December 2004.^[6][7] The current owner of this trademark is Eiffel Software.^[1][8]

Design by Contract has its roots in work on formal verification, formal specification and Hoare logic. The original contributions include:

• A clear metaphor to guide the design process
• The application to inheritance, in particular a formalism for redefinition and dynamic binding
• The application to exception handling
• The connection with automatic software documentation

Description

The central idea of DbC is a metaphor on how elements of a software system collaborate with each other, on the basis of mutual obligations and benefits. The metaphor comes from business life, where a "client" and a "supplier" agree on a "contract" which defines for example that:

• The supplier must provide a certain product (obligation) and is entitled to expect that the client has paid its fee (benefit).
• The client must pay the fee (obligation) and is entitled to get the product (benefit).
• Both parties must satisfy certain obligations, such as laws and regulations, applying to all contracts.

Similarly, if a routine from a class in object-oriented programming provides a certain functionality, it may:

• Expect a certain condition to be guaranteed on entry by any client module that calls it: the routine's precondition—an obligation for the client, and a benefit for the supplier (the routine itself), as it frees it from having to handle cases outside of the precondition.
• Guarantee a certain property on exit: the routine's postcondition—an obligation for the supplier, and obviously a benefit (the main benefit of calling the routine) for the client.
• Maintain a certain property, assumed on entry and guaranteed on exit: the class invariant.

The contract is the formalization of these obligations and benefits. One could summarize design by contract by the "three questions" that the designer must repeatedly ask:

• What does it expect?
• What does it guarantee?
• What does it maintain?

Many languages have facilities to make assertions like these. However, DbC considers these contracts to be so crucial to software correctness that they should be part of the design process. In effect, DbC advocates writing the assertions first.

The notion of a contract extends down to the method/procedure level; the contract for each method will normally contain the following pieces of information:

• Acceptable and unacceptable input values or types, and their meanings
• Return values or types, and their meanings
• Error and exception conditions values or types, that can occur, and their meanings
• Side effects
• Preconditions
• Postconditions
• Invariants
• (more rarely) Performance guarantees, e.g. for time or space used

Subclasses in an inheritance hierarchy are allowed to weaken preconditions (but not strengthen them) and strengthen postconditions and invariants (but not weaken them). These rules approximate behavioral subtyping.

All class relationships are between Client classes and Supplier classes. A Client class is obliged to make calls to Supplier features where the resulting state of the Supplier is not violated by the Client call. Subsequently, the Supplier is obliged to provide a return state and data that does not violate the state requirements of the Client. For instance, a Supplier data buffer may require that data is present in the buffer when a delete feature is called. Subsequently, the Supplier guarantees to the client that when a delete feature finishes its work, the data item will, indeed, be deleted from the buffer. Other Design Contracts are concepts of "Class Invariant". The Class Invariant guarantees (for the local class) that the state of the class will be maintained within specified tolerances at the end of each feature execution.

When using contracts, a supplier should not try to verify that the contract conditions are satisfied; the general idea is that code should "fail hard", with contract verification being the safety net. DbC's "fail hard" property simplifies the debugging of contract behavior as the intended behaviour of each routine is clearly specified. This distinguishes it markedly from a related practice known as defensive programming, where the supplier is responsible for figuring out what to do when a precondition is broken. More often than not, the supplier throws an exception to inform the client that the precondition has been broken, and in both cases—DbC and defensive programming—the client must figure out how to respond to that. DbC makes the supplier's job easier.

Design By Contract also defines criteria for correctness for a software module:

• If the class invariant AND precondition are true before a supplier is called by a client, then the invariant AND the postcondition will be true after the service has been completed.
• When making calls to a Supplier, a software module should not violate the Supplier's preconditions.

Because the contract conditions should never be violated in program execution, they can be either left in as debugging code or removed from the production version of the code altogether for performance reasons.

Design by Contract can also facilitate code reuse, since the contract for each piece of code is fully documented. The contracts for a module can be regarded as a form of software documentation for the behavior of that module.

Relationship with software testing

Unit testing tests a module in isolation, to check that it meets its contract assuming its subcontractors meet theirs. Integration testing checks whether the various modules are working properly together.

Language support

Languages with native support

Languages that implement most DbC features natively include Cobra, D^[9], Eiffel, Fortress, Lisaac, Nice, Oxygene (formerly Chrome), Racket (including higher order contracts, and emphasizing that contract violations must blame the guilty party and must do so with an accurate explanation^[10]), Sather, SPARK (via static analysis of Ada programs), Spec#, Vala, VDM, and languages that are built on top of the Microsoft .NET framework version 4.x (C#, VB.NET) through the use of the System.Diagnostics.Contract namespace.

Languages with third-party support

Various libraries, preprocessors and other tools have been developed for existing programming languages without native Design by Contract support:

• Ada, via GNAT pragmas for preconditions and postconditions. The Ada Rapporteur Group is preparing the inclusion of subprogram contracts (AI05-0145) and type invariants (AI05-0146) in the future version of Ada, Ada 201X.
• C and C++, via the DBC for C preprocessor, GNU Nana, eCv static analysis tool, or the Digital Mars C++ compiler, via CTESK extension of C. Loki Library provides a mechanism named ContractChecker which verifies a class follows Design by Contract.
• C# (and other .NET languages), via Code Contracts (a Microsoft Research project integrated into the .NET Framework 4.0)
• Groovy via GContracts GContracts
• Java, via iContract2, Contract4J, jContractor, Jcontract, C4J, Google CodePro Analytix, STclass, Jass preprocessor, OVal with AspectJ, Java Modeling Language (JML), SpringContracts for the Spring framework, Modern Jass, Custos using AspectJ,JavaDbC using AspectJ, JavaTESK using extension of Java, chex4j using javassist, or Contracts for Java, and the highly customizable java-on-contracts.
• JavaScript, via Cerny.js or ecmaDebug.
• Common Lisp, via the macro facility or the CLOS metaobject protocol.
• Nemerle, via macros.
• Perl, via the CPAN modules Class::Contract (by Damian Conway) or Carp::Datum (by Raphael Manfredi).
• Python, using packages like zope.interface, PyDBC or Contracts for Python.
• Ruby, via Brian McCallister's DesignByContract, Ruby DBC or ruby-contract.
• Tcl, via the XOTcl object-oriented extension.

Generic tools

• Perfect Developer, via the Perfect specification language, can verify contracts with static code analysis and generate programs in languages such as C++ and Java.

See also

• Component-based software engineering
• Defensive programming
• Formal methods
• Hoare logic
• Modular programming
• Program refinement
• Test-driven development

Notes

1. ^ ^{a b} Current status of United States Patent and Trademark Office registration for "DESIGN BY CONTRACT"
2. ^ Code Contracts
3. ^ Meyer, Bertrand: Design by Contract, Technical Report TR-EI-12/CO, Interactive Software Engineering Inc., 1986
4. ^ Meyer, Bertrand: Design by Contract, in Advances in Object-Oriented Software Engineering, eds. D. Mandrioli and B. Meyer, Prentice Hall, 1991, pp. 1–50
5. ^ Meyer, Bertrand: Applying "Design by Contract", in Computer (IEEE), 25, 10, October 1992, pp. 40–51, also available online
6. ^ United States Patent and Trademark Office registration for "DESIGN BY CONTRACT"
7. ^ United States Patent and Trademark Office registration for the graphic design with words "Design by Contract"
8. ^ Current status of United States Patent and Trademark Office registration for the graphic design with words "Design by Contract"
9. ^ Bright, Walter (2006-08-20). "D Programming Language, Contract Programming". Digital Mars. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/dbc.html. Retrieved 2006-10-06. 
10. ^ Findler, Felleisen Contracts for Higher-Order Functions

Bibliography

• Mitchell, Richard, and McKim, Jim: Design by Contract: by example, Addison-Wesley, 2002
• A wikibook describing DBC closely to the original model.
• McNeile, Ashley: A framework for the semantics of behavioral contracts. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Behaviour Modelling: Foundation and Applications (BM-FA '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2010. This paper discusses generalized notions of Contract and Substitutability.

External links

• An introduction to Design by Contract(TM)
• Original IEEE Computer article
• Isaac / Lisaac Project home
• dlib C++ Library
• Java Programming by Contract Class Utility
• GContracts - Programming by Contract with Groovy
• C2 Wiki: Design by Contract
• Damian Conway's Class::Contract Perl module from CPAN
• Raphael Manfredi's Carp::Datum Perl module from CPAN
• GNU Nana
• Digital Mars Contract Programming (DBC)
• Class Contracts in Delphi Prism
• Contract language and tools for .NET
• Using Code Contracts for Safer Code