T-76.115 Project Review

1
T-76.115 Project Review

• eGo
• I1 Iteration1.12.2003

2
Agenda

• Project status (15 min)
• achieving the goals of the iteration
• project metrics
• Used work practices (5 min)
• Completed work (20 min)
• demo
• technical specification
• Plans for the next iteration (5 min)

3
Status of planned goals of the iteration

• GOAL 1 Have a fully working implementation of
  the definition part of the marketing research
  project system
• OK, Project creation, edition and questionnaire
  attachment done with minor flaws
• Project deletion and status change postponed
• GOAL 2 Testing done according to the testing
  plan
• OK, Testing done successfully
• GOAL 3 User interface evaluation and design for
  project manager interfaces
• PARTLY OK, Initial design done, evaluation
  postponed
• GOAL 4 All technology evaluation and selection
  is finished
• OK, technologies selected struts, velocity,
  eclipse, jboss, excel
• GOAL 5 Specification of all protocols and
  external interfaces is done
• PARTLY OK, Initial specification of the
  XML-format done

4
Realization of the tasks

• The implementation of the Core architecture was
  much more intensive than expected
• Mostly this was because of insufficient knowledge
  about the tools and frameworks used
• Too few customer meetings, this was because of
  damage control
• Tasks XML-Schema (4) and module testing (20) not
  started

5
Working hours by person
Realized hours in this iteration
Plan in the beginning of this iteration
Real Plan Diff
AHA 47,5 45 2,5
JKA 50 50 -0
SLE 53,5 50 3,5
LHE 44,5 40 4,5
JKO 43,5 45 -1,5
HTO 32 45 -13
SLA 42,5 40 2,5
Total 313,5 315 -1,5
PP Sub-total I1 I2 I3 DE Total
AHA 56,5 56,5 45 60 30 15 206,5
JKA 39,5 39,5 50 60 30 15 194,5
SLE 33,5 33,5 50 60 30 15 185,5
LHE 44 44 40 60 30 15 191
JKO 31 31 45 60 30 15 181
HTO 36 36 45 60 30 15 186
SLA 23,5 23,5 40 60 30 15 169,5
Total 264 264 315 420 420 170 1314

• We managed to add 1,5 hours to our reserve. We
  now have a total of 17,5 extra hours that we
  immediately allocated to the next iteration (red
  figures)
• tried to even up work load between individuals

Latest plan (inc. realized hours and other
updates)
PP I1 Sub I2 I3 DE Total
AHA 56,5 47,5 104 67,5 30 15 213,5
JKA 39,5 50 89,5 60 30 15 198
SLE 33,5 53,5 87 60 30 15 185,5
LHE 44 44,5 88,5 60 30 15 194,5
JKO 31 43,5 74,5 60 30 15 179,5
HTO 36 32 68 65 30 15 178
SLA 23,5 42,5 66 65 30 15 177
Total 264 313,5 577,5 437,5 270 170 1330
6
Quality metrics
Bug metrics
I1 I2 I3 DE Total
Reported 3 3
Closed 1 1
Open 2
Blockers Critical Major Minor Trivial Total
Total open 0 0 1 1 0 2
This iteration reported 0 0 2 1 0 3

• Due to problems with getting started in
  implementation not many bugs were reported

7
Quality assessment
Functional area Coverage Quality Comments
Project creation 3 L 2/10 test cases passed, not sufficiently implemented
Questionnaire creation 2 K 2/2 test cases passed. Good progress made, still a lot to do
Project viewing 2 L ¼ test cases passed
Project editing 3 K 2/6 test cases passed
Legend Coverage 0 nothing 1 we looked at
it 2 we checked all functions 3 its
tested Quality J quality is good K not
sure L quality is bad

• Feedback from the Quality Department
• Test execution took four (4) hours instead of
  planned seven (7)
• One person was sufficient to run all the tests
  whole group was not needed this time
• The tests covered all the requirements that were
  set for this iteration
• Overall state of the components is not satisfying
• The group has used more intensive methods for bug
  reporting instead of Bugzilla Messenger, ICQ
• Quality is bad (but, like the Finns say Alku
  aina hankalaa)

8
Software size (Java)
PP I1 I2 I3 DE
Total (NCLOC COM) 0 2859
Lines of Code in Methods (LOCm) 0 368
Number of statements (NOS) 0 261

• We chose to use Number of Statements, since it
  gives a better view of the software
• Configuration work, web resources, excel macros
  etc not included here

9
Risks

• Risk management is done by three the members of
  the group attending risk management module
• The risks are analyzed and dealed co-operating
  with the project manager
• Following conclusions have been made during the
  I1-iteration
• The time risk is still number one because of the
  complexity and good quality requirements of the
  product
• Studying new J2EE features have been taking a lot
  longer than anticipated so some negative
  surprises might still occur
• The modules are done in teams of two or three and
  testing of them might not reveal all the bugs
  inside them
• The server has been stable but possible downtime
  can cause severe delays
• The customer has approved the design of the
  product so risk of abandoning it has lowered

10
Work practices

• The group has used all the mandatory practices
  demanded by the course
• Version control system has worked well via
  eclipse
• Time reporting has been working well except some
  difficulties due Trapoli system.
• Bugzilla has been used to report bugs. The amount
  of use has been very low due early stage of
  developement.
• Members have been studying and documenting their
  own personal practices
• Especially pair programming practice has been
  used frequently
• Some advantage has been gained through more
  efficent internal communicating
• The use of Design Patterns practice is shortly
  briefed by Samuli
• During the next iteration
• Use of Bugzilla will be increased
• Automated unit testing will be increased

11
Results of the iteration

• Working implementation of use cases 6.1-6.4
  (demo)
• Create new project
• Attach questionnaire
• Browse project info
• Edit project properties
• New deliverables for the iteration were
• Test plan
• Test specification
• Test reports
• Technical specification
• Other results
• Group understanding of J2EE and Jboss is now on a
  sufficient level, should have been there already
  in the beginning of the iteration
• Technological choices have all been made and we
  feel confident in the choices (struts, velocity,
  CMP, etc).

12
Technical Specification

• System architecture
• Module descriptions
• System security

13
Test Documentation

• Test planning
• Started in PP phase
• Testing practices and responsibilities are now
  planned and documented
• Test cases
• Test cases are grouped into test suites after use
  cases
• in addition to just verifying that
  functionalities are implemented, defects are
  looked for by testing limits for input values
• Test cases (total 25) were documented and run,
  see test specification for details
• Test specification test log
• Test report
• 7/25 test cases passed
• Why so few? -Implementation was started late
• Although lots of tests failed, core architecture
  is now well designed and implemented
• QA in the future
• More disciplined unit testing with JUnit
• Run system tests once in the middle of an
  iteration to give programmers feedback

14
Plan for the next iteration

• Goals
• Have a fully working implementation of the
  interviewing part of the marketing research
  project system
• Rework the I1 code
• CMR
• missing functionality
• Testing done according to the testing plan
• User interface evaluation and design for project
  manager interfaces and wap interfaces
• Deliverables
• Test case specifications
• Test report
• Use cases (1, 2, 3, 4), 6, 7, 8, 9 implemented