T Iteration Demo Byte-Pit I1 Iteration

T Iteration demo 2 Agenda  Introduction (3 min)  Project status (10 min)  Achieving the goals of the iteration  Hour usage  Iteration experiences (10 min)  Design & Implementation  Quality Assurance  Other activities  Work results (10 min)  Produced/updated documentation  Architectural status  Product demo  Demo (7 min)  Questions (5 min)

T Iteration demo 3 Introduction to the project  What?  visualization of anomalies caused by malware  Why?  to ease the task of detecting if a system is infected  to increase the speed and precision of the analysis  How?  by a 3D presentation of the system  by highlighting suspicious areas  Why 3D?  lists are tedious to search through  especially when you’re not sure what you’re looking for  visual objects can be more intuitive  trying out a new concept

T Iteration demo 4 Status of the iteration’s goals  Goal 1: Get the implementation process started  OK, but was delayed for some parts  Goal 2: Implement the program framework  OK, implementation supplemented as more information arise  Goal 3: Achieve all requirements set for the iteration  OK, but not tested as whole  Goal 4: Stabilize used conventions  OK, some conventions dissed others adapted well  Goal 5: Design visualization in detail  Draft ready but still needs much more work  Goal 6: Design UI  OK for now  Goal 7: Produce simplified visualization  OK  Goal 8: Get customer feedback  Not enough, product wasn’t ready  Goal 9: Maintain high quality of software process  OK, e.g. QA activities not ditched even when running late

T Iteration demo 5 Status of the iteration’s deliverables I1 Iteration PlanOK Quality Plan including I1 Test PlanOK Updated ADDOK Updated Project PlanOK Visualization PlanDraft ready, needs more work UI designOK for now, waiting for Visualization plan Test logsNot done, didn’t get to system testing yet Regression test logsOK Week reportsOK, evolved along the iteration

T Iteration demo 6 Working hours Major discrepancies:  One member quit the project  Many people planned to do the project on winter holidays RealPlanDiff Project management Meetings Design Programming ,5-100,5 QA Documenting Infrastructure Studying Misc Total477640,5-163,5 Realized hours by work discription RealPlanDiff Berger 057,5-57,5 Kilappa Lehto 85,547+38,5 Lindqvist 10372,5+30,5 Lopperi 67,556+11,5 Mertanen 7,583-75,5 Mäki 5577,5-22,5 Mäkinen Pietiläinen 64,583-18,5 Total477640,5-163,5 Realized hours by person

T Iteration demo 7 Working hours by work description Realized hours in I1 iterationPlan in the beginning of this iteration Latest plan (inc. realized hours and other updates) PPI1 Σ I1,5I2Total Project man. 6,52329,55,53065 Meetings Design ,520136,5 Programming QA Documenting 80,542122,51032,5165 Infrastructure 14,51428,501,530 Studying Misc Total , ,5 RealPlanDiff Project management Meetings Design Programming ,5-100,5 QA Documenting Infrastructure Studying Misc Total477640,5-163,5 PPI1I2Total Project man. 6, Meetings Design Programming 0167, Pair progr QA Documenting 80, Infrastructure 14, Studying Misc Total 286,5640, Unused hours of this iteration are to be contributed during winter holidays Mertanen’s unused hours are subtracted from the plan yielding a new total of 1376,5 hours Iteration 1,5 to be done between 9.12 and 15.1

T Iteration demo 8 Working hours by person Realized hours in I1 iterationPlan in the beginning of this iteration Latest plan (inc. realized hours and other updates) RealPlanDiff Berger 057,5-57,5 Kilappa Lehto 85,547+38,5 Lindqvist 10372,5+30,5 Lopperi 67,556+11,5 Mertanen 7,583-75,5 Mäki 5577,6-22,5 Mäkinen Pietiläinen 64,583-18,5 Total477640,5-163,5 PPI1 Σ I1,5I2Total Berger 65,50 34, Kilappa Lehto 7685,5161,508,5170 Lindqvist 22, ,5044,5170 Lopperi 6767,5134,5035,5170 Mertanen 97,516,500 Mäki 14,55569,513, Mäkinen Pietiläinen 964,573,51185,5170 Total 286, , ,5 PPI1I2Total Berger 65,557, Kilappa Lehto Lindqvist 22,572, Lopperi Mertanen Mäki 14,577, Mäkinen Pietiläinen Total286,5640,

T Iteration demo 9 Risks  Some risks have realized  The development environment was just a little bit late  Lost one group member  Key members have used more hours than planned  Lack of communication concerning task progress  Used hours  Have not affected project goals  Product not far behind the schedule  Work has been more efficient than expected

T Iteration demo 10 Design and implementation effort (1/2)  Total of 271 hours used  Work divided into ~40 tasks  Some tasks done in pairs  Also a SEPA about Pair Programming  Design mostly part of implementation tasks  Separate UI and visualization design tasks

T Iteration demo 11 Design and implementation effort (2/2)  Work practices  Mostly individual working  Some pair programming  Also over the net  Communication over Skype  Experiences from I1  Not all were familiar with C++  Implementation was more efficient than planned  On average around 75% of the planned hours were actually used  An average group member programmed at the staggering speed of 67 LOC / hour  Pair programming worked well  Or at least a “help desk” where you can get directions, information or debug assistance

T Iteration demo 12 Quality assurance effort  Total of 73 hours used  18 hours of reviews  55 hours of unit testing  Reviews  Usually two people, sometimes three (author always present)  The product and possible test code were searched for usual errors  Author was questioned for rationales behind choices  Lacking tests often revealed errors => new tests were added  Knowledge was propagated  Unit tests  15 of planned 21 modules have unit tests  All complete modules have tests  Over 1600 lines of test code  Done with macro-based 3rd party test framework modified to match groups needs  Static Analysis  System testing  Didn’t really get to it, just a few bugs found & fixed near the end

T Iteration demo 13 Other activities  Meetings  With the customer  Iteration planning  UI design meeting  Unit testing lecture  Project sauna  Project group meetings

T Iteration demo 14 Results of the iteration  Updated documentation  Old ones updated  Architecture Design Description  Quality Plan  SEPAs  The product

T Iteration demo 15 Quality Plan  Main points  Automated unit tests where applicable  Regression tests with every (debug) run  Manual unit tests e.g. with 3d engine  Static analysis tools  All code is reviewed  Clean up messy parts, straighten structure  Find bugs  Spread the knowledge  System testing at the end of the iteration  Exploratory with light charters  Bugzilla used to communicate bugs  Peer testing in iteration 2  Functionality, usability  Keep it as light-weighted as possible  More likely that it’s really done  Especially no explicit test cases!  Reviews and unit tests ensure that QA activity alive all the time  Results and experiences with automated tests are reviewed in a SEPA

T Iteration demo 16 Architectural Design Description  Architecture was designed in the PP iteration  Layered architecture  Model-View-Controller user interface  Design patterns  Some adjustments were made to ADD in I1  Subsystem and feature design examples  Experiences from I1  Working solution  Eases managers work with natural task divisions  Makes it sometimes hard for a single developer to see his work in relation to other modules  Patterns provide common language between developers  Implemented patterns had variable success  SEPA on design patterns

T Iteration demo 17 Architectural status (1/2) Approximated status of layers Logic Only the most primitive controlling UI Window components done, actual user interface not done 3D engine done Most of the 3D elements not done HW OpenGL hardware abstraction done Audio output not done SW Sorting and filtering done, clustering not done Data models done Settings done, not used Audio and bitmap loading not done

T Iteration demo 18 Architectural status (2/2) Approximated status of layers OS File streams done, resource streams not done Synchronization done Common Primitives done Debug and unit test support done Localization done (texts are not done)

T Iteration demo 19 The product  Roll the demo!

Questions?