T Project Review RoadMappers 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 (15 min)  presenting the iteration’s results  demo  Plans for the next iteration (5 min)

T Project Review 3 Status of planned goals of the iteration  Refine architecture  OK, no major changes needed  Design user interface in more detail  OK, remaining use cases designed  Implement remaining use cases  Underlying code is mostly OK  Load/Save/Import/Export needs more work  Implement GUI-module  Some parts still missing  Ports, attributes and constraints not done  Undo/Redo also missing  Test system  Executed unit tests and some of the system tests  More is needed

T Project Review 4 Status of planned deliverables of the iteration  GUI-module  needs more work  Use cases: UC-02, UC-03, UC-14, UC-17, UC-20, UC-23, UC-29, UC-30, UC-31, UC-32 and UC-33  Underlying code mostly OK  Updated project plan  New plans  Updated technical specification  Needed only minor changes  Test cases  Done basic cases – more done for I3  Updated usability evaluation document - OK  Test report and test log - OK  User manual  Draft exists

T Project Review 5 Realization of the tasks  Estimation problems with implementation  Extra hours reserved for unit testing were unused  Usability test moved to I3  Done hours were less than planned because several tasks had ”slack” (meetings, personal assignment etc), even though implementation tasks took more than planned

T Project Review 6 Working hours by person 1/2  PM didn’t have much extra work  Will participate more to other tasks (testing etc.) in the future  Some of the Enbuska’s effort went to I1 hours  Usability tests moved to I3 -> Less hours for Karkkunen & Saastamoinen RealPlanDiff Pohjola Enbuska 29,545-15,5 Karkkunen 30,540-9,5 Latto Saastamoinen 33,545-11,5 Sarmanne Siltanen 4950 Total 239, ,5 Realized hours in this iteration

T Project Review 7 Working hours by person 2/2 Plan in the beginning of this iteration PPI1 Subtot I2I3DETotal Pohjola Enbuska Karkkunen 4951,5100,540 19,5200 Latto 54,570, Saastamoinen 4442,586,545 23,5200 Sarmanne Siltanen Total 314,5361, Latest plan PPI1I2SubtotI3DETotal Pohjola Enbuska ,5127,552, Karkkunen ,5132,547, Latto 54,570, Saastamoinen ,5122,552, Sarmanne Siltanen Total 314,5366,5239,5920,5318,

T Project Review 8 Quality metrics 1/2  Major problems  There is not help available in the dialog windows  Using multiple values in the modify attribute dialog is difficult  No usability tests in I2  Will be done in I3, where it’s possible to get more input from the tests Usability problems found in I2 CatastrophicMajorMinorCosmeticDue to the prototype shortages Total Heuristic analysis

T Project Review 9 Quality metrics 2/2  Unit tests  Tests/fail - 55/5  2 critical, missing functionality  3 serious  System tests  Test cases 64  Executed 35  Pass/Fail – 8/27 I1I2I3DETotal Reported 036 Closed 0036 Open 036 Bug metrics CriticalSeriousMinorTotal Total open This iteration reported

T Project Review 10 Quality assessment  The item pass/fail criteria for unit level had to be ignored to be able to start system level testing. It was decided that system level testing should be started even though the product really was not ready for that  Test cases TC-2-09 to TC-2-18, TC-4-XX, and TC-5-02 to TC were not executed, because the functionality that they are testing is not fully implemented  The following test cases could not be executed for different reasons: TC-1-04, TC-1-05, TC-1-07, TC-1-08, and TC-1-12 Functional areaCoverageQualityComments GUI1  Missing functionality Controller3  Missing functionality Model2  Some problems and missing functionality Views3  Nothing serious found Legend Coverage: 0 = zero coverage 1 = poor coverage 2 = adequate coverage 3 = good coverage 4 = excellent coverage 5 = full coverage Quality:  = quality is good  = not sure  = quality is bad

T Project Review 11 Software size in Lines of Code (LOC) PPI1I2I3DE Total – Controller Com – Controller Total – GUI * Com – GUI Total – Model Com – Model Total – Views Com - Views Total Comments  * Mostly generated code, which has been edited

T Project Review 12 Risks  No new risks were identified during this iteration  3 risks have materialized (ID, weight 1-100, rank)  Access problems to SoberIT (R18, weight, #4) => Responsible person contacted, alternative ways of data transfer  Integration (R22, weight 16, #11) => More time for design and integration  GUI impementation skills (R4, weight 14, #15) => Tutorials, discussions  All of these have been reacted or the risks effects will be handled in the next iteration

T Project Review 13 Work practices 1/3  Used practices were  Project progress tracking and control  Hour reporting  Communication practices   Internal meetings  Requirements management  Design patterns  Configuration management  Coding conventions  Refactoring  Quality assurance  Document reviews  Automated unit testing  Bug reporting  Usability testing  Heuristic evaluation  Practices have worked well in general  We will continue using current practices  No new practices except peer testing in I3

T Project Review 14 Work practices 2/3  Progress tracking and control  Fewer internal meetings (not every week)  Meetings involving smaller parts of the group are more informal than initially planned  Both changes have worked well, no major communication problems  Refactoring  Refactoring was done on a larger scale in Model-module  Had an effect on the architecture, which caused integration problems  Made the code clearer, which helped the communication between implementation group members  Very little change in software size, but added some classes  We learned that refactoring should be done in the beginning of the iteration, when there are no other changes to the code and there is the possibility to change the architecture

T Project Review 15 Work practices 3/3  Configuration management  Most of the documents don’t pass the HTML-validator without errors  This is not a problem because the documents with multiple editors still are easily readable and editable – which was the goal in the first place  In January there was a period when the rule: “code must compile before it can be put in to the CVS”, was omitted for a while (Model-module interface change)  No other deviations from this rule  Coding convention is in use without major deviations  Only exceptions is generated code – even this is clearing up due “cleaning”

T Project Review 16 Results of the iteration  Updated documents and reports  New delis  Implemented use cases (will be demonstrated later)  User manual has been started  User manual  Implemented by the design group  Contents  Working with Models  Working with Objects  Working with Views

T Project Review 17 Plan for the next iteration  Goals  Finalize user interface design  Finalize user interface  Test system  Peer group tests our system  Test peer groups system  Deliverables  Implemented use cases and core parts  finalize modules and interface  Documents:  Test report and test log  Peer test plans  Peer test reports  User's manual  Plus updated documents and progress report

T Project Review 18 Timeline