t-76.4115 iteration demo team dtt i1 iteration 7.12.2005

T-76.4115 Iteration Demo

Team DTTI1 Iteration

7.12.2005

2

T-76.4115 T-76.4115 IterationIteration demo demo

Agenda

Project status (10 min) achieving the goals of the iteration project metrics

Work results (20 min) Project plan Requirements document

Used work practices (5 min)

3


Introduction to the X-Connector project (1/2)

Domain: process simulation, simulation model with several simulation engines (cluster)

Deliverables: a user interface for defining data exchange between the cluster members a test server environment for prototyping the data exchange data synchronization scheme

Technology: web service technology based on OPC specifications user interface as an Eclipse plug-in

4


Introduction to the X-Connector project (2/2)

The customer of the project is VTT Industrial Systems

Prioritized objectives:1. User interface implementation and test server to store data exchange

connection information 2. Synchronisation implementation for the test server cluster

5


Status of the iteration’s goals

Goal 1: Design core architecture: OK: Components of the software (UI, DX interface, servers) are defined more

thoroughly, key components’ design is finalized Goal 2: Plan and document quality assurance activities and practices

OK: Documented in project plan chapter 5.2 Goal 3: Produce a first working version of the software with some core

functionality OK: User interface with limited functionality Partially completed: static DX-configuration, test server

Goal 4: Improve working methods OK: communication improved (MS Messenger, Wiki), more effective meeting

practices used Goal 5: Create / update SEPA diaries

OK Goal 6: Produce the plan for Implementation iteration 2

OK: planning on general level done, more specific plan will be delivered in the beginning of I2

6


Status of the iteration’s deliverables (1/2)

Documents:

Updated project plan OK: chapter 5.2 Quality assurance added, document updated

Updated requirements document OK: descriptions of selected use cases added

Technical specification OK: updated version of the document

Test cases, test report and test log UI tests OK, but testing for the integrated system could not be done

Updated SEPA diaries OK: All practices were used in I1

User’s instructions OK: Initial version of the user’s manual

Progress report OK

7


Status of the iteration’s deliverables (2/2)

Software:

User interface (limited functionality) Create a workspace (UC1.1): OK Add/remove clusters (UC2.1, UC2.3): Unfinished Add servers to clusters (UC3.1): OK Add and remove connection groups (UC5.1, UC5.2): Unfinished Add and remove connections to groups (UC5.4, 5.5): Unfinished Browse OPC servers (UC8.1): OK

TestSimulator Data Access Browsing of servers: OK Provides simulated server information from a static source: OK Provides dummy data: OK

Data eXchange (UC4.1 – UC6.2) Provides DX web service interface: OK DXConfigurationWrapper: Removed (integrated in DXConfiguration) OPC XML DXKit: OK

TestSimulator Data eXchange DX features: Unfinished

8


Realization of the tasks (1/2)

Status and effort distribution per task group (4.12.2005)

44 tasks in total, 3 added during the iteration Remaining effort of project management for iteration demo and I2 planning Remaining effort of programming mainly for task ”Implement Server DX

Functionality” which didn’t finish on time Remaining effort of QA for task ”Test DX configuration as a system” which

was postponed to I2 SEPA-practices, especially heuristic evaluation, are more suitable to be used

in I2

Work type Estimated effort Realized effort Remaining effort Under/over estimatedProject management 145 127 18 0Infrastructure 9 11 0 -2Design 37 30,5 0 6,5QA 59 31 20 8Programming 155 141 15 -1Documenting 21 11 0 10SEPA 52 29,5 0 22,5Studying 36 26 0 10TOTAL 514 407 53 54

9


Realization of the tasks (2/2)

Realized effort smaller than estimated (~425h vs. 514h) Effort needed to achieve the goals would have been ~460h

Work burn-down

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

21.10.2005

28.10.2005

4.11.2005

11.11.2005

18.11.2005

25.11.2005

2.12.2005

Ho

urs

10


Working hours by person

Coding was started one week behind the schedule 20% of the effective development time lost Christmas vacation will be (at least) one week shorter..

Separate components could not be integrated, because one DX component did not finish on time

System testing could not be done (Ville and Tomi could not use 20 budgeted hours)

Realized hours in this iteration

Effort Teemu Tomi Dennis Mikko Timo Ville TotalEstimated 71 83 81 100 91 88 514Realized 65,5 62 68 83,5 58 70 407Difference 5,5 21 13 16,5 33 18 107

11


Working hours by person

Realized hours in I1 iteration Plan in the beginning of this iteration

Latest plan 51% of the effort used at the

moment Work done during christmas

vacation is counted to I2

Member Estimated Realized DifferenceTeemu 71 69 2Tomi 83 65 18Dennis 81 71 10Mikko 100 85 15Timo 91 60 31Ville 88 71 17

Member PP I1 SUM I2 TOTALTeemu 63 71 134 56 190Tomi 47 83 130 60 190Dennis 44 81 125 65 190Mikko 4 100 104 86 190Timo 4 91 95 95 190Ville 4 88 92 98 190TOTAL 166 514 680 460 1140

15 % 45 % 40 %

Member PP I1 SUM I2 TOTALTeemu 63 69 132 58 190Tomi 47 65 112 78 190Dennis 44 71 115 75 190Mikko 4 85 89 101 190Timo 4 60 64 126 190Ville 4 71 75 115 190TOTAL 166 421 587 553 1140

15 % 37 % 49 %

12


Quality metrics

No critical or blocker bugs found 4 unfixed defects at the moment (all minor) Weekly code reviews

I1 I2 TotalReported 4 4Closed 0 0Open 4 4

Bug metrics

Blockers Critical Major Minor Trivial TotalTotal open 0 0 0 4 0 4This iteration reported

0 0 0 4 0 4

13


Quality assessment

User interface showed good quality No blocker, critical or major defects! Thorough testing of implemented features Only 4 minor defects were found

OPC XML DXKit has been tested only by the developers during the development process

Formal test session will be arranged after the integration Quality of the implemented software modules is good, but the

integration has not yet been made. Thus, no conclusions of the quality as a system can be made

Functional area Coverage Quality Comments

User interface 2 Test session arranged, 4 minor defects found

OPC XML DXKit 1 Briefly tested by the developer

TestServer 2 Test session arranged, no bugs found

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

14


Software size in Lines of Code (LOC) as of 4.12

The numbers for each component shows the LOC without comments. The percentage indicates the amount of comments of the total LOC.

The PP column shows LOC for the code provided by the customer DXConfiguration and OPC XML DX Kit contain auto generated code as well

as user code As this project contains both auto generated code and code obtained

from the customer, it is not very easy to use this as a reliable metric. It is, however, interesting touse this for comparing the code output in

different components.

PP I1 I2

User interface / Eclipse plugin - 3174 (16%) -

Test Server 450 (44%) 5178 (19%) -

OPC XML DX Kit - 28395 (5%) -

DXConfiguration - 3807 (18%) -

Total (NCLOC + COM) 450 (44%) 40554(9%) -

Comments (COM) 353 4149 -

15


Changes to the project

Goals of the project Implementation of the fast data access was removed

Goals of the coming iterations Some features planned for I1 not yet finished and have to be postponed

We will finish most of these before the official start of I2 Synchronization scheme is the main goal of I2

Requirements New requirements added Many requirements have been re-specified during I1

Technologies Client side web service functions implemented in Java/Axis instead of

C++/gSoap DXConfigurationWrapper removed

16


Risks

Current situation regarding the risks Risk log in the project plan: 10 risks with their effects, estimated impacts and

probabilities, persons responsible 2 risks realized during I1

The customer’s CVS server was inaccessible for a week and delayed the start of development work

Problems in understanding the project domain caused delays Identified risks

A team member quits in the middle of the project or something happens (accident, sickness etc.)

New technologies cause problems The customer is developing some software components that will be used in the

project but fails to deliver them in time Requirements change in the middle of the project Workload of the whole project is underestimated Workload of iteration I1 is underestimated and (software) deliverables won’t

finish on time Developed software components are incompatible One of the group members has difficulties to stay on schedule Difficulties in understanding the project domain Problems with the customer’s CVS server

17


Results of the iteration

System architecture Updated requirements document QA plan

Demonstration of the developed software

18


System architecture

The system consists of a server and a user interface

The server is implemented in C++ and the UI components in Java

19


Requirements document

Functional requirements 21 (and 1 deleted) functional requirements New functional requirements have been added Existing requirements have been re-specified

Use cases 31 (and 4 deleted) use cases Many additions during I1 Existing use cases have been re-specified Use case IDs have been renamed Use case list has been re-organized Detailed descriptions of selected use cases

Non-functional requirements No changes

20


QA plan

1 test session Software modules (except UI) were tested only by the developers (no test

sessions) System integration was postponed

the whole system couldn’t be tested BugZilla wasn’t really used during I1

No real need, because there has been only 1 developer per module Bugs found in the test session have been reported to BugZilla

Weekly code reviews were held No defects found in code reviews Good for coming up with solution ideas and for keeping the management team

up-to-date

21


Demo script

Server Start the server

Use the server specification text file as a parameter Locate IP address of server

User interface & Server Start up the user interface in Eclipse Connect to the first DA server, OPC foundation’s test server

http://opcfoundation.org/XmlDaSampleServer/Service.asmx (or in case it is not online,

http://www.tswinc.us/xmldademo/xml_sim/OpcXmlDaServer.asmx) Port 80

Connect to the Test server Port 8081

Browse the DA trees Open subtrees Show properties

Drag & Drop nodes between the two servers Enter needed attributes in the window which is opened

22


Used work practices

Practices used in I1 iteration Iterative development: OK Iteration planning: OK, task list had to be updated several times Documenting: OK Risk management: Risk log updated Time reporting: Effort management tool was used to produce status reports

weekly Size reporting: OK Version control: CVS in use, all versions of the documents was published in

project’s web site Communication: Problems of the PP-iteration were tackled with Messenger and

Wiki Meeting practices: Weekly meetings more effective than in PP Defect tracking: BugZilla will be used more in I2 Heuristic evaluation: SEPA-topic Refactoring: SEPA-topic

23


Thank you!Any questions?

t-76.4115 iteration demo team dtt i1 iteration 7.12.2005

Documents

practices ok

ok dxconfigurationwrapper

updated project plan

ok data exchange uc4

core functionality ok

ok testsimulator data

working methods ok

technical specification