T Iteration Demo BetaTeam I1 Iteration

T Iteration demo 2 Agenda  Project status (10 min)  achieving the goals of the iteration  project metrics  Work results (30 min)  presenting the iteration’s results  Technical Specification and system core architecture  Demo: beta version of Product Database Server  Used work practices (5 min)  Questions and comments (5 min)

T Iteration demo 3 Introduction to the project Motivation: To implement and integrate Product Database Server solution to current NAPA product aiming to finding out the relation database effectivisity comparing the current shared file system. Customer: NAPA Ltd ( computing-based systems for ship safety and performance ) Customer Goals: To implement, test and delivery a product database server, which work in the first phase together with 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. Project members goals: Geting the product database server work done with good quality, learning new practices and tools as a team with good team spirit.

T Iteration demo 4 Project current situation  85% of customer goals has been reached  Reached: 1. Database ER model is ready. 2. The database has been implemented according to the ER model. 3. It is possible to test the database. 5. The architecture is ready and will support different end users. 6. Interface to the current system function “read” works. 7. Interface to the current system function “write” works. 8. Update the database Information. 9. Interface to the current system function “delete” works.  Will be done during I2 iteration (not planned exactly yet): 4. Replacement of the current, shared file style data manipulation by the database server. 10. The software is possible to execute on a laptop (Win & Solaris). 11. There is a Remote procedure call (RPC) interface. (This is an extra feature!)  53% of Working effort from Total project effort have been used  Requiremets current situation in Requirements Specification document

T Iteration demo 5 Status of the iteration I1 goals (1/2)  Goal 1: To design the core architecture(ER model), the architecture in detail and data model  OK. Architecture has been changed from the first planned version and updated to technical specification.  Goal 2:The database implementation, basic classess’ impelemtation and unit testing (read, write, delete and update)  Database has been implemented and tested according to technical sepcification and ER model. OK  Read functionality has been focused, implemented and tested.OK  Write functionality has been focused, implemented and tested.OK  Delete functionality has been focused, implemented and tested.OK  Update functionality is part of write functionality. Update works and it has been tested. OK  Goal 3:Familiarize with engineering and building environments  Engineering Environment: Java, Intel compiling environment for Fortran, Visual C++ environemt for c -coding, Embedded SQL environment.  Sybase –database server  Building Environement: Napa Build and Eclipse (Java)  Goal 4:Familiarize with integartion and system testing environments  OK, Integration and system testing environemnt is Napa environent with the new database  Goal 5: Kick-off meeting with project group, mentor and customer  OK

T Iteration demo 6 Status of the iteration I1 goals (2/2)  Goal 6: Beta release of new product data server ( functional requirements from ”must” category)  OK. Database implemented, but not integrated to UI.  All functionality read, write, update and delete has been planned, implemented and tested.  Goal 7: First phase of the SEPA  OK, all has been given introduction to their SEPA subjects.  iteration I1 diaries is in the web site.  Subjects are ( meeting practices, pair programmin and unit testing)  Goal 8, Peer testing is planned  NOK, This has been agreed with mentor and customer and move to I2 iteration  Goal 9: Project monitoring and tracking  OK, regulary on monday meetings  Goal 10: Reporting the project progress and work effort to customer and mentor  OK, weekly reports to customer and mentor

T Iteration demo 7 Status of the iteration’s deliverables  Updated project plan (especially chap. 5.2 QA plan)  OK. Also I2 Iteration plan first draft  Updated requirements document  OK  Technical specification  OK, UML diagrams for all the planned features ( read, write, delete and update)  Test cases  OK  Test report and test log  OK  Peer testing instructions  NOK, move to next iteration.  Progress report  OK, this document  Release note  OK  Beta version of the Product Data Server  OK, it is possible to demonstrate the beta version.

T Iteration demo 8 Realization of the tasks  Design, architecture and Requirements, over run – 12.5h  Design takes more time than planned ( Lack of current system documentation)  Implementation, left 49h  Design takes more effort than planned, unit testing very demanding  Testing, left 50.5h  Testing started later than planned  Testing tasks has been changed as follows:  "integration testing execution" ->"static testing of code"  "system testing execution" -> "dynamic testing" StatusRealPlanDiff(Left) ME: Meetings ST: SEPA & engineering environments Programming and PP : database implemtation, read, write, delete, build scripts Design architecture and Requirements QA: testing and reviews *) PM: communication, reports,working hour management Documents: relese note, web pages Total * unplanned task (= a new task added during the iteration)

T Iteration demo 9 Working hours by person  Juho was sick few days  Testing has been started later than planned ( Kauko was allocated to testing tasks )  This report has been made on Friday. (There is 4-5 working days left.) RealPlanLeft Ulla Suomela Jari Leppä Raine Mäki 90 0 Hannu Kankaanpää 94 0 Juho Mäkinen Kauko Huuskonen Total Realized hours in this iteration

T Iteration demo 10 Working hours by person  Implemetation has delayed  Testing period has been started later than planned  Testing tasks actuals are less than planned effort  53 % of the project effort has been used  Report has been made on Friday ( few I1 days left) Realized hours in I1 iterationPlan in the beginning of this iteration PPI1 Σ I2Total Ulla Jari Raine Hannu Juho Kauko Total Latest plan (inc. realized hours and other updates) PPI1 Σ I2Total Ulla Jari Raine Hannu Juho Kauko Total RealPlanLeft Ulla Suomela Jari Leppä Raine Mäki90 0 Hannu Kankaanpää Juho Mäkinen719319,5 Kauko Huuskonen Total

T Iteration demo 11 Quality metrics in I1 iteration  No Critical bugs founded and only one major  We won’t use severity classification normal anymore in I2  Two Bug’s are still open I1I2Total Reported 20 Closed 00 Resolved 18 Open 22 Bug metrics BlockersCriticalMajorNormalMinorTrivialTotal Total open This iteration reported

T Iteration demo 12 Quality assessment, in I1 iteration  We made a lot of static testing during week 48  Reviews for Read, Write and Delete  Database was tested with Parser.java  No problems or bugs found  Unit-tests for java-classes Functional areaCoverage QualityComments Parser3Tested Read2Tested only with Unit-tests and code review Write1 Write tested only with Unit-tests and code review Update-function not tested with Unit-tests Delete2Tested only with Unit-tests and code review Database2 Old and new0Not tested 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 Iteration demo 13 Software size in Lines of Code (LOC) N/A in I1 iteration PPI1I2 Java, Client-side C (JNI/Header) 0956/309 Fortran 050 Test classes 0542 Parser 0508 Total (NCLOC + COM)  Comment-lines included  We made small changes in old Fortran code  We used Parser.java inputting testdata to database  Three Java classes  Db.java  Dm.java  DatabaseAccess.java

T Iteration demo 14 Changes to the project during I1 iteration  Peer test planning has been moved to I2 iteration  first draft is reday, but the document isn’t yet ready  Decision for postpone to I2 iteration in project meeting, change has been communicated to mentor and customer  Testing process has been changed  Integration started very soon after implementation  Unit testing has been done after integartion testing  System testing has been doen only slightly

T Iteration demo 15 Risks  Risk management weekly in project meetings  ASA developer edition java support problems discussed with Vendor  Risk not realized  Developer was sick  New risks, which have also realized  The documentation of current NAPA system was minimal (Overhead)  Sharing infromation in customer meetings and s  concentrating only the most important NAPA features  One developer was sick (delay in Impelemtation and testing tasks )  Build script (to exe) is broken (delay in Impelemtation and testing tasks )  try to find out, which library functions are missing with customer  testing features through *.dll

T Iteration demo 16 Results of the iteration  Testing documentation  Technical Specification, System core architecture

T Iteration demo 17 Technical Specification

T Iteration demo 18 Technical Specification

T Iteration demo 19 ER-Model

T Iteration demo 20 DEMO  Demo: product Data Server beta version -READ –operation from relational database

T Iteration demo 21 Used work practices  Iterative develpment  Important to start the implemetation as soon as possible  Important to have milestones during the iteration  time reporting  creating working hour management system takes time  difficulties to add new task to the excel system  Reporting practices works well  Risk management  weekly during project metings  version control  works well  Requirements and change management  during customer meetings  important to write up decisions to meeting minutes  SEPA  meeting practices  works well. Important to sum up deadlines.  pair programming  unit testing  statical metods  We are not going to make big changes to the current practices

T Iteration demo 22 Thank your time !  Questions  Comments