MSE Presentation (Phase III)

1
MSE Presentation (Phase III)
Pesticide Safety Consultant System (PSCS)
Fengyou Jia Oct. 20, 2003

2
Give my sincere thanks to

• Major Professor
• Dr. Bill Hankley
• Committee Member
• Dr. Maria Zamfir Bleyberg
• Dr. Scott A. DeLoach

3
Presentation Outline

• Formal Specification Modification (phase II)
• Project Overview
• Project Requirements
• Test and Reliability Evaluation
• Project Evaluation
• Project Demo

4
Interface navigation
5
(No Transcript)
6
-- Counting pesticide products that are able to
control the primary pest and -- secondary pest
(option) thus far (prior to formulation
selection) with -- considering mamtoxicity,
ecotoxicity, and environment_hazard of --
pesticides. -- Class Product context
Productcount (p1 Pest, p2 Pest, mamvalue
String, ecovalue String, envvalue String) pre
beforecontinue result ( pesticide.allIstance
-gt select(p Pesticide p.control -gt
includes(p1) and p.control -gt includes(p2) ) )
-gt size post aftercontinue result (
pesticide.allIstance -gt select(p Pesticide
p.control -gt includes(p1) and p.control -gt
includes(p2) and p.contain.mamtoxicity
mamvalue and p.contain.ecotoxicity ecovalue
and p.contain.environment_hazard envvalue)) -gt
size
7
Project Overview

• Objective
• To design a user-oriented pesticide safety
  consultant system in guidance of pesticide
  selection and application in pest management
  program.
• Potential Users
• Farmers/growers, Extension Professions,
  Government Agencies (EPA), Universities.

8
Project Requirements
Pesticide Database
Query Returning
Query Inputting
Pesticide Safety Consultant System (PSCS)
Inputs
Outputs
Querying Results
User
9
Test and Reliability Evaluation

• Gives a detailed description of the testing done
• GUI (Graphical User Interface) Testing
• (Each of 43 GUI Items was tested in terms of
  functionality)
• Unit Testing
• (16 questions in a checking list was checked for
  testing units and interfaces between units)
• Integration Testing
• (19 test cases using for testing system integral
  functionality)
• Number of errors decreased as the testing
  progressed and eventually ended up with no errors

10
Test evaluation (cont.)

• In response to the comments and suggestions
• from the committee in phase II and before, I
• have added two important features for the
• PSCS.
• Candidate pesticide counting
• This feature is to tell user whether he/she
  should continue to search.
• Secondary pest selection
• This feature is to allow user to consider the
  secondary pest that is also need to be controlled
  at the same time (but limited to the same pest
  group as the primary pest).

11
Project Evaluation

• Size of project
• Estimated 1.6 k
• Actual 1.8 k
• This small difference is caused by the adding
  several new features for the PSCS. Overall, it is
  good matched between the estimated size and the
  actual size.
• Cost effort
• Estimated 3.7 months
• Actual 3.9 months
• Evaluation match
• Schedule
• Phase I was modified following the presentation I
  and the project requirements and scopes were
  refined thereafter.
• Phase II and Phase III were finished according
  the schedule.

12
Project Evaluation (cont.)

• Product Evaluation
• Meets all project requirements
• Successful through the test cases
• Stable run good on Microsoft Explorer
• Performance result
• Table results performed as expected

13

• Future PSCS
• Adding more safety features
• Populating more data into database
• Membership?

14
Demo
(http//www.oznet.ksu.edu/pesticidedatabase/main.a
sp)