t -76.4115 iteration demo betateam i2 iteration, final solution 2.3.2006

T-76.4115 Iteration Demo

BetaTeamI2 Iteration, Final Solution 2.3.2006

2

T-76.4115 T-76.4115 IterationIteration demo demo

AgendaMarketing-spirited Presentation of Project Outcome (20 min)

General situation System Core Architecture Solution and its Benefits Relationdatabase vs. flat- file technology BetaTeam Demo: Product Database Server

Project Evaluation (20 min) Project Effort Project Progress Goals Metrics Practices Educational value

Closing and discussion (5 min)

3


General Information Customer: NAPA Ltd ( computing-based

systems for ship safety and performance )

Motivation: To implement and integrate a Product Database Server solution to the current NAPA product, aiming to find out the relation database effectivity compared to the current shared file system.

Customer Goals: To implement, test and deliver a product database server, which would in the first phase work together with the current, shared file style data manipulation. The new solution will be integrated to the application’s interface which already exists and uses its interface functions.

4

T-76.4115 T-76.4115 IterationIteration demo demoTechnical Specification – System architecture

5


Technical Specification – Read operation

6


Solution and its benefitsProduct Database Server concept

Architecture provides configuration to multiusers environment

Architecure offers users an open solution for future performance level (new compiling tool-kits, new server, new platforms)

7

T-76.4115 T-76.4115 IterationIteration demo demoAdvantages of relationaldatabase technology vs. flat-file(1/2)

reduced network traffic handling concurrent users handling concurrent data manipulation reliable architecture automatic datacorruption recovery

8

T-76.4115 T-76.4115 IterationIteration demo demoAdvantages of relationaldatabase technology vs. flat-file(2/2)

high data integrityscalable technologystandard technology possible to use 3.rd party appliances

performance especially multiuser environmentsbackup features

9


Demo script Product Database Server:

Connecting to the database from the UI using DB.OPEN command.

Querying descriptions from the database using CAT command.

Setting partial match conditions for query using SEL command.

Reading records from description with GET and NEXT commands.

Using explorer to view contents of the database.

10


Project EvaluationProject EffortProject Progress GoalsMetricsPracticesEducational valueClosing and discussion

11


Working hours by person

Real Plan DiffUlla Suomela 190 190 0Jari Leppä 163 190 -27Raine Mäki 202 190 +12Hannu Kankaanpää 194 190 +4Juho Mäkinen 173 190 -17Kauko Huuskonen 158 190 -32Total 1080 1140 -60

Realized hours in whole project 95% from planned Effort

12


Working Effort by procent

21 %

14 %

13 %12 %

11 %

9 %

7 %

7 %4 % 2 %

palaverit

testaus

pariohjelmointi

dokumentointi

projektinhallinta

opiskelu

Suunnittelu

ohjelmointi

Infra

luennot

13

T-76.4115 T-76.4115 IterationIteration demo demoComparing to previous years projects

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

BetaTeam

projektit 2004-2005

14

T-76.4115 T-76.4115 IterationIteration demo demoProject progress PP Iteration, Highlights

Organizing the projectStarting the Infra Studing the subjectStarting the quality work reviwing the documentsvery rapid iteration Important to share the working tasks

15

T-76.4115 T-76.4115 IterationIteration demo demoProject Progress, I1 iteration, Highligts

Spliting the iteration to testing milestoneStarting the work asapArchitecture work important to review by customer

Flexible architecture optional features possible to modificate

implementation to features from ”must” categoryTesting the implementation by original data asapEffective meeting practicesTesting process has been changed

Integration started very soon after implementation Unit testing has been done after integration testing System testing has been done only slightly

Problem of building exe

16

T-76.4115 T-76.4115 IterationIteration demo demoProject Progress I2 Iteration

Change management : Picking up the most important requirements with customerRest of the ”must” category features Solving the exe building problem Choosing relationdatabase from NAPA UI

System testing started after solving the exe building problemFinalizing the implementationperformance testing arrangements demanding

17


Project GoalsCustomer Goals 98 % achievment from PP phase Customer Goals 9 Goals achieved( implemented and tested) 1 Goal implemented ( not possible to test, not a unix

environment available for testing purposes)Project Team Goals Achieved grading goals not yet evaluated

Personal learning Goals Almost all the goals achieved

Iteration Goals ( Documentation) Achieved

18

T-76.4115 T-76.4115 IterationIteration demo demoQuality metrics N/A in PP iteration

Description of blocker and critical bugs found and open other QA metrics

unit test coverage code reviews source code metrics ...

I1 I2 TotalReportedClosedOpen

… or make a more detailed table/graph, where you show per module bugs, and/or classifications per criticality, origin (own system testing, code reviews, customer, peer group) etc.

Bug metrics

Blockers

Critical

Major Minor Trivial Total

Total openThis iteration reported

19


Legend

Coverage: 0 = nothing1 = we looked at it2 = we checked all functions3 = it’s tested

Quality:= quality is good= not sure= quality is bad

Quality assessment 27.2.2006

Functional area Coverage

Quality

Comments

Read 3 TestedWrite, Update 3 TestedDelete 3 TestedDatabase and ER 3 TestedDatabase operations 3 Tested

Performance 2 Tested locallyQuery 3 Tested

Testing is automated in Unit-level, System-level test-suitesDatabase:

We reported two little difference between db and ER Partial update and who has made last update tested connection tests are fully covered There are some test-cases for multi-connections

Performance needs to be test with multiple database-connections and over noisy networkQuery: Is testedExe-compiling: tested

20


Software size in Lines of Code (LOC) N/A in PP iteration

Any remarks on this metric? lots of new functinality was implemented refactoring reduced LOC

PP I1 I2Total (NCLOC + COM) 0 1000 4000Comments (COM) 0 100 200

PP I1 I2Part A Total/com 0 500/90 3000/10

0

Part B 500/10 1000/100

Part CPart DPart ETotal (NCLOC + COM) 0 1000 4000Comments (COM) 0 100 200

… or make a more detailed table, where you can show per module LOCs, or proportion of real code vs. test code

21


RisksRisk management weekly in project meetings

regualy weekly reporting to customer and mentorNew risks, which have also realized

The documentation of current NAPA system isn’t sufficient (Overhead)

Sharing infromation in customer meetings concentrating only the most important NAPA features

project member has been sick (delay in Impelemtation and testing tasks )

Build script is broken (delay in Impelemtation and testing tasks ) try to find out, which library functions are missing with customer testing features through *.dll

Problems in working effort estimation Requirements focusing was a demanding task

Other courses and daily work priorization

22


Used work practices Iterative planning

A good way to work with changing requirements Iterative development

Important to start the implementation as soon as possible Important to have milestones during the iteration Important to test with original data asap

Time reporting Creating the working hour management system takes time ( no template from

course ) Difficulties to add new tasks to the Excel files Reporting practices work well

Risk management Weekly, during the project meetings

minimizing the risks Version control Requirements and change management

During customer meetings Important to write up decisions to the meeting minutes

SEPA Meeting practices

Works well. Important to sum up deadlines Pair programming

good practice during demanding, many interfaces including programming phases Unit testing Statical methods

23


Educational value Working in real project with real Development work to real customer

balance between different stakeholders : mentor, customer, course Importance of maintenace in Software Development ( Sofware life-time)

it is expencive to re-write code Risks to change a major part of implementation Difficulties to take new technologies

4 different programming languages: Fortran, JNI interfaces, etc..Not a classical testing processes

unit testing, integration testing, system testing All the product development parts involve: from requirements to delivery and handoverTeam work - Learning by doing togetherNew intresting Business area - a fine experience

24


Thanks to all Questions & Discussion

t -76.4115 iteration demo betateam i2 iteration, final solution 2.3.2006

Documents