1. Requirements Engineering Lecture 7
Jerzy Nawrocki
Requirements Engineering
Lecture 7
Reviews
Copyright, 2000 © Jerzy R. Nawrocki
Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

2. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Jerzy Nawrocki
Plan of the lecture
Introduction
Documents for CMM level 2
Reviews in CMM level 2
Generic FTR procedure
FTR meeting
Preparation form
Fagan inspections
Active design reviews
Phased inspections
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

3. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Introduction
Cost of fixing a defect
Some fix time data
The relative time to identify defects (IBM ):
during design reviews: 1
during code inspections: 20
during machine test: 82
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

4. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Introduction
CMM Level 2 - Repeatable
Requirements management
Software project planning
Software project tracking and oversight
Software subcontract management
Software quality assurance
Software configuration management
CMM
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

5. Documents for CMM level 2
Policies for ..
software requirements management
planning (software life cycle)
managing a software project
managing a software subcontract
software quality assurance
software configuration management
Po-
licy
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

6. Documents for CMM level 2
Documented procedures for ..
reviewing external commitments
developing an SDP
estimating size, effort, cost, critical computer resources, and schedule
making revisions to the SDP
reviewing a project at milestones
planning SQA activities
dealing with deviations in activities & products
Proc
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

7. Documents for CMM level 2
Documented procedures for ..
planning SCM
dealing with change requests & problem reports
controlling changes to baseline
releasing products from baseline library
documenting the status of configuration items
auditing the software baseline
Proc
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

8. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Reviews in CMM Level 2 QA
Statement of work
External commitments
Project at selected milestones
The software baseline (audit)
Statement
of work
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

9. Parameters to be specified in SDP
Generic FTR procedure
Parameters to be specified in SDP
Name of the product
URL of the standard doc-struct
Due date for approved product
Producer
Review leader (SQA group)
Recorder (SQA group)
Reviewers (including recorder)
Expected preparation time
Expected meeting duration  S D P
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

10. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Generic FTR procedure
Steps (I)
Producer informs the project leaders + review leader + area manager (Bartek) that the product is ready and sends them a copy of it.
The review leader contacts all the participants of the review meeting to establish the date of the meeting (preferably in 3 days). He also distributes copies of the product to the reviewers.
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

11. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Generic FTR procedure
Steps (II)
The review leader is responsible for establishing an agenda for the review meeting.
The meeting takes place
The recorder prepares a review report and sends it to the participants of the meeting. A copy of it must also go to the project managers, the area manager and the SDS supervisor.
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

12. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
FTR meeting
A proposed agenda (I)
Review leader: Introduction of the agenda. Participants can propose some changes.
Recorder: Collecting the preparation forms (copies)
Producer: Presentation of the material. The producer “walks through” the material and explains, while reviewers raise issues. The recorder takes notes of valid defects and problems.
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

13. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
FTR meeting
A proposed agenda (II)
Recorder: Summary of defects and problems.
All attendees except producer: Anonymous (in written) presentation of early decision.
Recorder: Collecting of early decisions and their presentation.
Producer: “Last word”
All attendees except producer: Making final decision
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

14. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
FTR meeting
The decision
Accept. No modifications are necessary
Accept provisionally. There are some minor defects that must be corrected but no additional review is required (the project manager is responsible for checking the follow-up).
Reject. There are severe defects and another review is necessary.
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

15. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
FTR meeting
The decision
If the decision made by the reviewers is not clear (e.g. some are for Accept, some for Reject), the final decision belongs to the area manager.
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

16. Preparation form for FTR
Heading
Name of the product & its version: ...
Producer:
Reviewer:
The product received on:
Expected preparation time:
Actual preparation time:
Meeting scheduled on:
Early decision:
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

17. Preparation form for FTR
Body
Severe defects & problems (e.g. hidden problems, ambiguity, lack of understanding, etc.)
Problem description (annotation)
Minor problems (e.g. spelling, grammar, format etc.)
Problem description (annotation)
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

18. Preparation form for FTR
Annotations - Basic defect causes
“Two” or “too”?
Education: don’t understand
Communication: not properly informed
Oversight: omitted doing something
Transcription: knew & did but made a mistake
Process: due to the process
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

19. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Fagan inspections
The lifecycle
External specifications (function)
Internal specifications (module) - I0
Logic specifications (logic) - I1 design inspec
Design
Coding (logic) - I2 code inspec
Unit testing
Code
Test
Function, component, system test
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

20. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Fagan inspections
Other inspections:
IT1 - test plan inspection
IT2 - test case inspection
PI0, PI1, PI3 - publication inspections
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

21. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Fagan inspections
Design
Code
Unit
test I1 I2 I3
Net savings (hours/KLOC):
I1: 94
I2 : 51
I3 : -20
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

22. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Fagan inspections
Implementor
Review
session
Designer
Moderator
Tester
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

23. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Fagan inspections
Designer
Implem.
Moderator
Tester
Review
session
1. Overview (whole team)
2. Preparation (individual)
3. Inspection (whole team)
4. Rework
5. Follow-up
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

24. Fagan inspections Rate of progress (loc/h) I1 I2
Overview (whole team) not necessary
Preparation (individual)
Inspection (whole team)
Rework
Follow-up
Inspection session <= 2 hours
1 - 2 sessions per day
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

25. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Fagan inspections
Design error types
CD: CB definition
CU: CB usage
IC: Interconnect calls
LO: Logic
MD: More detail
MN: Maintainability
OT: Other
PE: Performance
PR: Prolog ...
Question:
What should be
the design error types
for UML?
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

26. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Fagan inspections
Code error types
CC: Code comments
CU: CB usage
DE: Design error
IC: Interconnect calls
LO: Logic
MN: Maintainability
OT: Other
PE: Performance
PR: Prolog ...
Question:
What should be
the design error types
for Java or HTML?
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

27. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Fagan inspections
Checklist for design inspection
Are all constants defined?
If a queue is being manipulated , can the execution be interrupted; If so, is queue protected by a locking structure?
Are registers being restored on exits?
Are all increment counts properly initialised (0 or 1)?
Are absolutes shown where there should be symbolics?
Are all blocks shown in design necessary?
Missing Wr Ex
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

28. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Fagan inspections
Checklist for code inspection
Is correct condition tested?
Is correct variable used or test?
Is each branch target correct?
Is the most frequently exercised test leg the THEN clause?
Are all required parameters passed set correctly?
Does the inline expansion contain all required code?
Test branch
Interconnect
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

29. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Fagan inspections
Error list
PR/M/Min L3: the prologue in the REMARKS
section needs expansion.
LO/W/Maj L172: NAME-CHECK is performed one
time too few.
DE/W/Min L175: the design should allow for the
occurrence of a period in a last
name.
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

30. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Fagan inspections
Date
Code inspection report
Major Minor
M W E M W E
Mod/Mac:
CC: Code comments
CU: CB usage
DE: Design error
IC: Interconnect calls
LO: Logic
MN: Maintainability
OT: Other
PE: Performance
PR: Prolog
Total
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

31. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Active design reviews
Parnas and Weiss, 1985
Questions posed by the author of the design - to encourage a thorough review
Several brief reviews focusing on a part of a work product (part of a design document)
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

32. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Phased inspections
1 Compliance with required internal documentation format. Also spelling and grammar can be checked here.
2. Source code layout.
3. Readability.
4. Good programming practice (gotos, global variables, ..).
5. Correct use of various programming constructs (updating control variables for while, closing files, ...).
6. Functional correctness.
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

33. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Phased inspections
Defects:
indigenous
seeded
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

34. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Summary
Documented procedures are necessary for CMM level 2.
Review procedures can be stated in a generic form.
The main difference between a Fagan inspection and walk-through is:
lack of checklists for walk-throughs, and
lack of presentations for Fagan inspections.
At last!
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

35. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Jerzy Nawrocki
Further readings
M.C. Paulk et. al.,The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1994.
R. Pressman, Software Engineering. A practitioner’s Approach, McGraw Hill, New York, 1997. 
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

36. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Jerzy Nawrocki
Further readings
M. Fagan, “Design and Code Inspections ..”, IBM System J., vol. 15, no.3, 1976,
M. Fagan, “Advances in Software Inspections”, IEEE TSE, vol. SE-12, no. 7, 1986.
J.C. Knight, E.A. Myers, An improved inspection technique, CACM, vol. 36, No.11, Nov. 1993, pp 
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

37. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Jerzy Nawrocki
Homework
Organise and perform a review of the Initial Project Description.
Organise and perform a review of the usage scenarios for your project.
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Requirements Eng., Lecture 7

38. J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7
Quality assessment
1. What is your general impression? (1 - 6)
2. Was it too slow or too fast?
3. What important did you learn during the lecture?
4. What to improve and how?
J. Nawrocki, Requirements Eng., Lecture 7