1. Graphical Interface for Organizations in IPDS Presentation 3 Donald lee

2. Overview Action Items Component Design Assessment Evaluation Project Evaluation Demonstration Questions/Comments

3. Action Items Created Use Case for User Interaction. Use Case #1: Get Agent List – Description: This use case describes the user interaction with the drop down box and to populate the agent list in the panel to the user. – Pre-Conditions: actionPerformed handle is executed and Vertex has been selected in the drop down box. – Details: Once the user has selected an IPDS from the list. The View will then call the Presenter component to retrieve the agent list for that specific IPDS. The Presenter will then go through its list of IPDS until reaches the correct IPDS. Once retrieved, the Presenter will get the list of agents from the IPDS and send the information back to the View. Once the view has this information, the view will then populate the agent table on the screen. During this time, the view will continually call the Presenter to determine the status of each agent for display purposes. – Post Conditions: Agent Table in the View has been populated with the selected IPDS. – Specific Requirements: SF7: The view will populate the IPDS object information when a user selects the object either by the graph vertex or the drop down box provided on the same panel as the graph.

4. Component Design

5. OrganizationPresenter

6. OrganizationView

7. IPDS Model

8. Assessment Evaluation Summary Test CaseFunctionality TestedPass? Test Case #1 (5 IPDS, Not Connected)SF1, SF3, SF7, DF3Pass Test Case #2 (2 IPDS)SF1, SF2, SF4, SF6, SF7, DF1Pass Test Case #3 (5 IPDS)SF1, SF2, SF4, SF6, SF7, DF1Pass Test Case #4 (6 IPDS)SF1, SF2, SF4, SF6, SF7, DF1Pass Test Case #5 (62 IPDS)SF1, SF2, SF4, SF6, SF7, DF1Pass

9. Problems Encountered Test CaseIssue/BugActions to Resolve Test Case #4 (TC-06) An issue occurred in the case of the Lateral IPDS. In this case, the lateral would create it’s self-agents but when it came to creating the organization agent, it would not create all the agents. This would randomly occur during testing. After switching to a different computer, all test cases based, I concluded that this was a minor issue and was due to the limitations of the computer running the test case (out of memory exception) and as result, the test case passes. Test Case #5 (TC-62)Some of the early IPDS (F10, S1) were not properly connected to other IPDS in the organization tree. This was due to the incorrect splitting on the agent name (F instead of _F). As mentioned in the table, the bug associated with was resolved by changing the code for when creating the connection list when they split the agent name that is associated with connection to another IPDS. Once this had been corrected, the test case was run again and the expected outcome was produced in the graph.

10. Project Evaluation Phase #DevelopmentWritingDesigningTestingRequirementsReadingTotal Phase 115.2520.500010.507.5053.75 Phase 218.5016.008.7503.501.5048.25 Phase 310.0012.7504.750027.50 Total43.7549.258.754.7513.509.00 Error Percentage (EP) = |(Actual LOC – Estimated LOC)| / Actual LOC EP = |(1,000LOC – 2,500LOC)| / 1,000 = |-1500| / 1000 EP = 150% (Underestimated)

11. Updated EAF Development Time (D) = 2.5 * (Effort Applied, E) ^ 0.38 4.0 = 2.5 * (E) ^ 0.38 Effort Applied (E) = 3.44 E = 2.4 * EAF * (KLOC) ^1.05 3.44 = 2.4 * EAF * (1) ^ 1.05 EAF = 1.43 (estimated 0.54)

12. Time Per Task Breakdown – Phase 1

13. Time Per Task Breakdown – Phase 2

14. Time Per Task Breakdown – Phase 3

15. Overall Total Time Per Task

16. Future Work Tasks Before End of April – Reformatting Panels on Form Tasks After End of April – Use of a live Map (Ex. Bing / Google Maps) – Use of Specific Coordinates of Graph Layout. Function implemented but not used.

17. Demonstration

18. Test Case #5 (TC62)

19. Questions/Comments