André Restivo, Hugo Sereno Ferreira {jpmdias,arestivo,hugosf}@fe.up.pt June 3rd, 2021 3rd International Workshop on Software Engineering Research & Practices for the Internet of Things (SERP4IoT 2021) Co-located with the 43rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2021)
Rushed development of devices and systems by competing vendors; - Overall neglect of interoperability standards and best practices; - Result is a highly-complex, heterogeneous, and frangible ecosystem. • More and more stories about devices stop working or behaving in unforeseeable ways: - e.g., smart locks which randomly open, doorbells that do not work without Internet, unsafe thermostat temperature adjustments... • Little to none safeguards or fallbacks: - Ignoring years of research in other fields, e.g., mission critical systems. • Traditional development approaches becoming unsuitable for IoT development: - Visual programming solutions (and other low-code approaches) have been proposed as an alternative. 3
popular visual programing solution used for IoT development: - Leverages the use of flows, by drag-n-drop nodes and links; - Provides both a development environment and a runtime; - Additional nodes can be added, by implementing them in JavaScript. • There are few available nodes that allow developers to improve the resilience of flows, and none come with the default node palette. - This is a current limitation of most low-code IoT development solutions. 4
computing as an approach to mitigate some management issues of complex of IoT systems. • An autonomic computing system should be able to: - Configure itself (self-configuration); - Constantly improve its performance (self-optimization); - Protect itself against malicious attacks (self-protection); - Automatically detect, diagnosis and repair system defections (self-healing). 5
responsible objects, stating that things should be self-aware of their context and apply smart self-healing decisions. - However, the transactional nature of the solution proposed have several shortcomings. • Aktas et al. and Leotta et al. were among the few to propose the use of runtime verification mechanisms to detect system problems. The first using a complex-event processing approach and the other using formal specifications of the system (i.e., UML). • Szydlo et al., Blackstock et al. and others have been proposing solutions to improve the reliability of Node-RED itself: - Approaches include partition of Node-RED flows across instances or conversion of flows (or nodes) into code that can be run by edge devices. - Disregards typical edge tier capabilities or assumes computational power above what is typical of constrained devices. 6
- We proposed an approach for improve the reliability of Node-RED flows by leveraging existent nodes (abstracted into sub-flows), found several limitations and shortcomings of the approach and of Node-RED itself. • “A Pattern-Language for Self-Healing Internet-of-Things Systems”: - We systemized the existent knowledge from several fields in what regards reliability, fault-tolerance and self-healing into a pattern-language with 27 patterns. - Defined two pattern categories: - Error Detection (probes) - Recovery and Maintenance of Health 7
of 17 nodes that can be used to add self-healing capabilities to Node-RED flows. • A single node might leverage more than one self-healing pattern. - There are nodes that do both detection and recovery (or maintenance of health), while others do only one of the parts. - Some nodes only provide specific use cases of the general pattern (e.g., Kalman noise filter). • There are some self-healing patterns that are not possible to implement only in Node-RED, e.g., depending on the devices features or exposed interfaces. • The extension only encompass nodes (and flows) with reactive behavior. - We consider proactive (e.g., preventive) approaches as a future research direction.
temperature and humidity readings each 60 seconds. - Possible errors: Sensor do not emit reading, values are out-of-spec for the sensor or other sensor misbehavior (e.g., stuck-at readings). Additionally, Node-RED can restart (e.g., due to a crash). • The extra nodes detect if (1) the device stops emitting values (heartbeat) and (2) if values are out-of- spec (threshold-check). If any issue appears, (3) missing values are compensated (compensate). If Node-RED restarts for some reason, the last reading is injected to the flow output (checkpoint).
is used to authenticate accesses to the lab. - The usage frequency varies during the day, and the load can require extra resources. • The extra nodes detect (1) the frequency of readings (timing) as slow, fast and normal, with a 15s interval per reading configuration. If there is a load spike, a balancing of the requests is done amongst available resources.
Node-RED instances running (which have different flows configured), if one fails, the other (which becomes the main one) must enable a specific flow (which ensures the maintenance of health of the system). • The extra nodes (1) allow to manage different instances by exchanging ping and election messages (redundancy) and (2) to enable or disable flows during runtime (flow-control), thus allowing to configure such self-healing behaviors (RUNTIME ADAPTATION).
we showcase the feasibility of using self- healing mechanisms within Node-RED flows to improve the system dependability. • However, we consider that these scenarios show only a portion of the possibilities of configuration/use of the self-healing extensions. • The experimental scenarios, although inspired in real-world use cases, have been hand-picked with prior knowledge of system, which is one of the considered threats to validity. • We also consider that using a real deployed testbed enhances the quality of the experiments. Nonetheless, it also poses some limitations/threats: - Limits the number of devices used during the experiments due to additional costs; - Makes it more difficult to replicate; - Capturing failures-over-time requires long-running experiments; - The users that typically interact with our system exhibit a level of expertise that is not representative of most IoT deployment scenarios. 14
extensions we have enabled Node- RED users to improve the overall system dependability via the addition of self- healing mechanisms. • We have also encountered several limitations in the current version which we consider as future work: - Some nodes have issues dealing with some cases (e.g., redundancy node is uncapable to deal with runtime network partitioning); - Node-RED's points of extension limits what we can do without modifying Node-RED itself, or the end-devices. - Most of the nodes do not have acceptable delays/margins into consideration (e.g., a delay of 1sec can be ignored for most smart home applications); - The nodes for device/service discovery, device registry and resource monitoring are limited due to the nature of IoT (e.g., lack of standards and the heterogeneity of communication protocols). - To better understand the limitations of our approach we need to be able to deliberately provoke failures, process which is, currently, mostly manual. 15
jpdias
asonas
zacky1972
ryou0634
kentosasaki
monochromegane
masatoto
langstat
joisino
ryotoitoi
shunk031
eumesy
rocio
smashingmag
brettharned
addyosmani
denniskardys
keathley
andyhume
sugarenia
eileencodes
lara
jcasabona
jlugia
