T Iteration Demo Team WiseGUI I2 Iteration

2 T Iteration demo Agenda  Work results (25 min) ‏  demo  presenting the iteration’s results  Project status (5 min) ‏  achieving the goals of the project  project metrics  Used work practices (5 min) ‏  Quality (5 min) ‏

3 T Iteration demo Demo

4 Introduction to the project  Customer: Houston Inc.  Project: Loan Shark  Design and develop a Java EE online demo credit application system for unsecured customer loans  No human interaction from the banks side -> everything automated  Main deliverable: Demo for marketing purposes  Built using Java EE technologies  Java Enterprise Edition 5 with EJB3 and JPA using JBoss Application Server 4.0 and JBoss Hibernate  Java Server Faces and Facelets using JBoss Seam 1.2 T Iteration demo

5 Paper prototype 5 T Iteration demo

6 Back end  Independent of the user interface  About 15 methods in the interface between back end and front end  Central element is the management of the business process  Business process is started when the user fills an application  When the user comes back later the same process instance should be continued  Changing the process should not require changes to the core code  Process has evolved during the course 6 T Iteration demo

7 Javascript prototype  The customer wanted something to show up as fast as possible  We developed a html prototype with Javascript tying the pages together  Required a lot of effort  As a result we did not have anything built upon the back end at the end of I1  Thus nothing that could be tested with test case based testing or exploratory testing  Branded versions a further digression 7 T Iteration demo

8 The real thing  Entire team working on the same thing  Many new technologies for everyone  Combining the back end with the JS prototype  Still a lot of new issues, mainly with input validation and navigation T Iteration demo

9 The real thing, without major bugs  Time to tie up loose ends  Find and fix bugs  Finalizing  Motivation boosters T Iteration demo

10 Software size  Non Commenting Source Statements (NCSS) ‏  Roughly equivalent to LOC  Other files calculated with wc -l  XML files hard to calculate as most stuff came with the stub  Branded JS prototypes missing  Hard to calulate as much of the code is identical to the original protype  I2 has mainly been about the GUI  Business Logic and the Process management sligthly trimmed Javascript prototype I1 HTML files 1215 CSS files 739 JavaScript files 548 Total2502

11 T Iteration demo Status of the project’s goals

12 T Iteration demo Results of the project  Loan application for marketing purposes built using the JBoss application stack  Code base is transferred to Houston for further development  Documentation consists of on-screen help, architecture document and code comments  HTML+CSS+JS prototypes for demo purposes  1 official  2 personalized versions  A load of documents and materials used during the project  Project plan, risk management document, QA plan, requirements document, architecture document etc.  Test logs, test cases, test charters, usability test reports etc.  3 paper prototypes, of which one was chosen to be developed

13 T Iteration demo Status of the iteration’s goals  I1G1 Working GUI prototype for demo purposes [OK]  I1G2 Framework with interfaces for the GUI [OK]  I1G3 Get our working practices running smoothly [OK]  I1G4 Have knowledge of Seam needed in the next iteration [OK]  I1G5 Deliver all deliverables [pending]

14 T Iteration demo Status of the iteration’s deliverables  Sprint 3  Working increment of the software, including integrated GUI and backend [OK]  Sprint 4  Enhanced increment of the software, including bugfixes, usability enhancements and other minor improvements [OK]  Updated project plan  Updated architecture description (will work as technical documentation as agreed upon with Houston) ‏  QA report  Test session charters (for own group and peer group)  Test cases  Test log  Summary of peer testing  Final report  Demo presentation slides [OK]  Peer testing guidelines [OK]  Updated SEPA diarys

15 T Iteration demo Effort used per person  Budgeted hours  Actual used hours

16 Communication

17 T Iteration demo Used work practices  Used practices  Development in the same place at the same time [excellent]  Pair programming [excellent]  Technology training [good]  Weekly scrums [good]  Weekly reporting with progress and risks [good]  Retrospectives for process improvement [good]  Riskit-method risk management [good]  Motivation boosters [not good, not bad, mostly funny]  TDD [tried, cancelled]  Changes  TDD was not enforced, but unit tests were required before commit  Tasks have been presented in more usable ways for each iteration and developers have had a chance to change unsuitable granularity

18 T Iteration demo Risks  No NEW major risks have materialized during I2  Used Jyrki Kontio’s Riskit method to develop our risk management. Including identification, analysis, control, monitoring and more (see for details) ‏ Risks are separated in the risk management document

19 T Iteration demo Changes to the project  Project was divided into simultaneous subprojects  There was a need to get a prototype out fast  Additional html prototypes needed  TDD was skipped as too demanding for our use

20 T Iteration demo Quality dashboard

21 T Iteration demo Quality practices and goals

22 T Iteration demo Quality goals