T Project Review TeXlipse [I2] Iteration

T Project Review 2 Agenda  Introduction to the project (1min)  Project status (10 min)  Status of the iteration's goals  Status of the iteration's deliverables  Realization of the tasks  Working hours per person  Risks  Work results (25 min)  Results of the iteration  Demo  Used work practices (5 min)  Chosen common work practices  SEPAs

T Project Review 3 Introduction to the project  The customer has a constant need for the creation of LaTeX documents.  The Eclipse IDE is free, powerful and gaining in popularity and it offers a rich environment for extension through a plugin architecture.  There are existing free plugins for this, e.g. the ecleTeX -project, but they are lacking in features.  The general purpose of this project is to create a LaTeX plugin for Eclipse IDE.  The developed plugin, TeXlipse, is to provide a efficient developing environment for creating LaTeX-documents.  Some of the key features to achieve this include:  Syntax highlighting  Folding  Templates  Build support  Keyboard shortcuts  Support for several platforms  One of the most important goals of this project is to provide a solid architectural platform that supports future development of the plugin.

T Project Review 4 Status of the iteration’s goals  The primary goal of this iteration was to provide a working release of at least the priority 1 features.  Although agreed within the group as secondary goal, the completion of the priority 2 features was of high importance as well. *In the end of each iteration a feature will be considered completed, if it has been tested as planned and contains no defects of severity blocker, critical or major. It may however contain at most two minor defects and at most 20 cosmetic defects.

T Project Review 5 Status of the iteration’s deliverables  All these documents have been delivered  Updated project plan  Updated requirements document  Updated technical specification  Updated test cases  Test report and test log  Risk document  User’s manual (draft)  Progress report  Updated SEPA diaries

T Project Review 6 Realization of the tasks  In total, the committed resources are almost equal to the planned ones.

T Project Review 7 Working hours by person  Resource allocation has not been equal.  We only have one more iteration to equalize the workload.  Some team members have to work hard to even up.  All in all, the total resources allocated for I2 were quite right.  The workload for F&D does not seem too heavy in common.

T Project Review 8 Quality metrics  Tags in the code:  FIXME: 31  TODO: 47 (7 ’javadoc missing’)  1 walkthrough, 1 inspection  Summary of defects and test cases:

T Project Review 9 Quality assessment  Item evaluation

T Project Review 10 Quality assessment  State of the most important quality attributes  The overall quality of the software is ok at the moment  Major issues have been solved and current solutions have been thought-out carefully  It is very likely that the quality will be good when the software is delivered

T Project Review 11 Software size in Lines of Code (LOC)  This was the second iteration when actual code was written.  The amount of code has increased dramatically.

T Project Review 12 Risks  Current situation regarding the risks  Some features have proven out to be more complex to implement than originally was thought.  The uneven resource commitment requires careful planning for the last iteration.  One team member was not able to attend to any meetings for the last 2 weeks.

T Project Review 13 Changes to the project  No major changes were made to the project.  As the requirements were so thoroughly discussed with the customer, no major changes have been necessary.  Some small adjustments have been made to single requirements together with the customer.

T Project Review 14 Results of the iteration  The most important substance of the major deliverables of the iteration:  Updated requirements document  Updated technical specification  Updated test cases  Test report and test log  User’s manual (draft)  Demonstration of the developed software:  We will give a short demonstration of the plugin at the moment.

T Project Review 15 Used work practices  Experiences of used practices  Mandatory practices  Time reporting with Trapoli  The dual-way of working with Trapoli was continued.  Gant-charts helped to cope with the schedule during the iteration.  The reporting has been more accurate.  Version control  The CVS version management tool has been a good help.  Risk management  Bugzilla was used for bug-reporting.  Bugzilla has many features that are not required in this scale project.  SEPAs  PM’s Diary (Jani, not present)  Communication practices (Jani, not present)  Static Methods (Esa, Oskar)  Pair Programming (Laura, Taavi)  Design Patterns (Antti, Kimmo)