T Project Review eGo I2 Iteration

T Project Review 2 Agenda  Project status (15 min)  achieving the goals of the iteration  project metrics  Used work practices (5 min)  Completed work (10 min)  demo  Plans for the next iteration (5 min)  Open discussion (10 min)

T Project Review 3 Status of planned goals of the iteration  GOAL 1  Working prototype of the system – OK!  GOAL 2  Interview part of the esurvey system – OK!  GOAL 3  User Interface heuristic evaluation – OK!  GOAL 4  Automated unit tests – NOT OK! Automated unit tests are dropped because of huge amount of work demanded and little amount of advantages gained from tests. Testing is decided to be implemented differently

T Project Review 4 Realization of the tasks  Lot of meetings Internal and Customer. Although lot of time were spend benefits were also substantial  WEB interface also took a lot of time but very satisfactory product was build. DS:Write/update tech. specs6,5020, GE:Meetings (customer) ,00-11,00 GE:Meetings (internal) ,0017,00 GE:Meetings (status/mentor)7.0014,00-7,00 IM:GUI ,0012,50 IM:update project plan32,5015, IM:Use Case , IM:Use Case ,0039,5 IM:Use Case ,009,00 IM:Use Case 412,5015, IM:Use Case ,009,50 IM:Use Case ,0013,50 IM:Use Case ,00-14,00 IM:Use Case ,001,00 PM:Other project management ,002,50 PM:Personal SE practice ,00-5,00 PM:Plan the next iteration6.0010,00-4,00 PM:Write progress report4.005,00-1,00 TE: Module Testing8,5015, TE:Execute and report tests ,000,00 TE:Prepare testing9.0015,00-6,00

T Project Review 5 Working hours  Over 75% of project is done  Only 300 hours left  little over 1000 hours used during the PP+I1+I2  Everybody has done something during I2  Differencies between persons caused by different field knowledge

T Project Review 6 Quality metrics  Team is now familiar with BugZilla  Most of the bugs were found outside ”disciplined” testing I1I2I3DETotal Reported Closed Open Bug metrics BlockersCriticalMajorMinorTrivialTotal Total open This iteration reported

T Project Review 7 Quality assessment  Feedback from the Quality Department  The tests covered all the requirements that were set for this iteration  Overall state of the components is good  The group is now familiar with Bugzilla  Additional bug reporting tools used: TODO-lists, , Messenger, ICQ...  Overall quality is good Functional areaCoverageQualityComments Web UI3 Re-tested in I2 phase, works fine now Questionnaire creation 3 Apart from minor enhancements it is ready Screening with WAP2  Good progress, but still not enough testing made Legend Coverage: 0 = nothing 1 = we looked at it 2 = we checked all functions 3 = it’s tested Quality:  = quality is good  = not sure  = quality is bad

T Project Review 8 Peer testing  Peer group (Muuntaja) has been contacted and schedule has been negotiated  Peer testing will be performed on week 10, covering:  questionnaire creation & upload  web UI functionalities  WAP interviewing  web interviewing  8 man-hours of work by peer group is allocated for us

T Project Review 9 Software size (Java)  We chose to use Number of Statements, since it gives a better view of the software  Configuration work, web resources, excel macros etc not included here  VM pages are also not included (both web and wap) PPI1I2I3DE Lines of Code in Methods (LOCm) Number of statements (NOS) Number of Lines

T Project Review 10 Risks  Risk management is done by three the members of the group attending risk management module  Following conclusions have been made during the I2-iteration  Some minor setbacks in technology sector  Time is luxury that we don’t have.  Good risk management has been efficent and risk factors have decreased

T Project Review 11 Work practices  The group has used all the mandatory practices demanded by the course  Version control system has worked well via eclipse.  Time reporting has been working well. Difficult to report for progress report beacuse not all the hours are done when progress report has to be handed in. Long period of time has also caused some hours to be forgotten  Bugzilla has been used to report bugs. The amount of use has been increased from I1 period. All founded bugs are not yet reported through bugzilla but use has been increases  Members have been studying and documenting their own personal practices  GUI has been tested by end users  Some advantage has been gained through more efficent internal communicating  The use of Heuristic Evalution practice is shortly briefed by Sampo  During the next iteration  Final touch to personal assigments

T Project Review 12 Results of the iteration  Working implementation of use cases ( not 6.5 demo):  New deliverables for the iteration were  User guides torsos (three different versions)

T Project Review 13 User Guide wap  On-going projects can be browsed  When logged in ongoing projects will show in the list  Choose the right project and open link  Brief summary of project is shown and link to start interviewing is also shown  On-going projects can be monitored  The quotas that need to filled and brief description of those can be read form start page of the project  Choose the quota to see it's desctription  The quota shows the results in format 1/30(on is founded and interviewed, the total amount of quota is 30)  Interview of certain project can be delivered  If interview link is choosed interview will start  Pressing back button will return you to earlier quoestion and empty the result of the question  When finished the phone will print results  Abort button will abort interview session  After interview updated quotas will be shown

T Project Review 14 Test Documentation  Test planning  Started in PP phase  Testing practices and responsibilities are now planned and documented  Test cases  Test cases are grouped into test suites after use cases  in addition to just verifying that functionalities are implemented, defects are looked for by testing limits for input values  Test cases (total 16 in this iteration) were documented and run, see test specification for details  Test specification = test log  Test report  concludes the results of testing  QA in the future  Heavy system testing to be done by eGo, customer and peer group  automate the tests

T Project Review 15 Plan for the next iteration  Goals  Pilot case (after/before winter holidays)  Working product  Data export  Deliverables  Fully operational product  Installing instructions  User guide wep  User guide wap  List of cell phones that work with the product DS:Write/update tech. specs GE:Meetings (customer) GE:Meetings (internal) GE:Meetings (status/mentor) IM: Bug fixing IM:Use Case IM:Use Case IM:Use Case IM:Use Case IM:Write user guides PM:Other project management PM:Personal SE practice PM:Plan the next iteration PM:Project review and preparation PM:Write progress report TE:Execute and report peer tests TE:Execute and report tests