Upload
bruno-mclean
View
43
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
T-76.115 Project Review. RoadMappers Final demo 6.4.2004. Project background (5 min) Demo (15 min) Delivery phase (3 min) Achieving the goals of the iteration Realization of tasks Project in general (15 min) Project progress (PP-I3) Aftermath Results Used work practices and tools - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
2
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Agenda
Project background (5 min) Demo (15 min) Delivery phase (3 min)
Achieving the goals of the iteration Realization of tasks
Project in general (15 min) Project progress (PP-I3) Aftermath Results Used work practices and tools
Comments and questions (5 min)
3
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Background
Main task “Create a graphical user interface for a modelling tool for configuration tasks”
Other groups (Confuse and Comet) in previous courses have produced the underlying system
The Sarcous research project is studying the possibility to model software product families and their components
Aim to bring more automation in the configuration process The tool will be used in the research of software product families
Testing different modelling methods for the variability in software product families
Tool provides a interface for drawing UML-like diagrams of product families and assigning dependencies like requires and conflicts to the components in diagram
4
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Demo
Some of the key functionality will be presented during demo
5
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
DE: Goals
Fix remaining defects and finalize system Some minor bugs remain They are documented
Finalize project documentation - OK Delivery of system – Customer has received system Evaluate own work – Final report Hold final meeting - OK
6
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
DE: Realization of the tasks
Bug fixing took more time than first estimated
Some new bugs found Estimate was updated during phase
More time in testing and defect reporting also
Acceptance testing did not require effort
name done plan diff left
*TOTAL* 203.00 189 14 0.00
GE: Infra 4.00 3 1 0.00
GE: Internal communication 4.00 5 -1 0.00
GE: Meetings (Internal) 12.00 14 -2 0.00
IM: Update User manual 7.00 4 3 0.00
PM: Final review and preparation
9.00 12 -3 0.00
PM: Meetings (Customer) 3.50 10 -6.5 0.00
PM: Other project management 5.50 5 .5 0.00
PM: Personal SE practice 15.50 21 -5.5 0.00
PM: Write final report 22.50 20 2.5 0.00
TE: Defect reporting 10.00 5 5 0.00
TE: Fixing defects 95.50 80 15.5 0.00
TE: Regression testing 9.50 5 4.5 0.00
TE: Test reporting 5.00 5 0 0.00
name plan
*TOTAL* 5
TE: Acceptance testing
5
name realized plan
DS: UI design 5.00 17
Unplanned 1.00 0
Realized tasks
Not started Unplanned
7
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Project progress – Project planning
First meetings Requirements definition
Done by requirements team Elicitation, analysis, documentation and validation phases
Project planning Goals were set
Learning goals for team Top-10 goals of customer
Work practices -> Quality Handbook Project infrastructure was created
Server, CVS etc.
8
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Project progress – Implementation 1
Work practices were clarified Design of UI in general and some use cases
UI prototype was created Heuristic evaluation Usability tests
Design of core architecture Start of implementation was delayed
Not enough time to implement GUI-module Design decisions were demonstrated with the prototype Prototype was later used as base for GUI-module
Module integration took more time than expected Not enough time to test Testing was done in the beginning of the next iteration
9
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Project progress – Implementation 2
Testing of the previous iterations implementation Design of remaining use cases
Planned usability tests were moved to I3 Heuristic evaluation was done
Architecture was refined Remaining use cases were implemented GUI-module was started
Functionality existed in the underlying code, but GUI did not offer support for everything
Some of the system test could not be run The phase was divided by the exam season and Christmas holidays
Had some trouble in getting back to work, but managed to catch up the planned schedule
10
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Project progress – Implementation 3
Last bits of design Pop-ups, icons etc. Usability tests Heuristic evaluation
Remaining parts of GUI-module were implemented Rest of the iteration consisted of testing and debugging Unit testing was given less attention due time constraints Peer testing
Peer group tested our system System was not mature enough at this phase Only six new bugs found
We tested peer groups system
11
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Project progress - Delivery
Mainly testing and debugging Acceptance testing done by customer Final meeting was held Final version with some bug fixes delivered to customer after acceptance
testing Document delivery
Final report Final versions of other documents
12
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Working hours by person in DE
The implementers (Enbuska, Siltanen, Latto) still had quite a lot of work with the bugs in the last iteration
Others could not participate in this Also more work for test manager
Real Plan DiffPohjola 27,5 48 -20,5Enbuska 36,5 33 3,5Saastamoinen 36,5 34 2,5Sarmanne 28 24 4Siltanen 28,5 18 10,5Karkkunen 24 29 -5Latto 22 8 14Total 203 194 9
Realized hours in this iteration
13
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Working hours by person in the whole project
As whole the project stayed on budget Deviation was 1,5 % (22 hours)
Individual deviations were between -9% (18,8 hours) and +8% (16 hours) The roles were clearly divided and in the end it was very difficult to try to
participate in other persons work load BUT not all the effort was marked to Trapoli
For example writing an e-mail takes about 5 minutes -> no need to report this What if you wrote 100 e-mails during this project? Over 8 hours of work that was never reported We tried to correct this by creating a task for internal communication Other similar activities (hidden work) still exist
Pohjola Karkkunen Siltanen Enbuska Sarmanne
Latto Saastamoinen Total
PP 66,0 49,0 30,0 34,0 37,0 54,5 44,0 314,5
I1 30,0 53,0 48,0 64,0 56,0 70,5 45,0 366,5
I2 24,5 32,0 51,5 30,0 41,5 33,5 34,0 247,0
I3 33,5 39,0 54,5 40,0 43,5 35,5 45,0 291,0
DE 27,5 24,0 28,5 36,5 28,0 22,0 36,5 203,0
Total 181,5 197,0 212,5 204,5 206,0 216,0 204,5 1 422,0
14
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Quality metrics 1/2
Two usability tests (I1 and I3) First with two users Second with four
Heuristic evaluation Three analyses, five evaluators Majority of problems found were minor problems Proposals for improvement and reporting the problems were most time-
consuming Valuable results with relatively small effort
Catastrophic Major Minor Cosmetic Not a problem TotalUsability tests 0 7 13 6 2 28Heuristic evaluations
0 8 22 13 10 50
Usability problems
15
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Quality metrics 2/2
Metric I1 I2 I3 DETime used for testing 3 24 12,5 9,5Time used for fixing defects 0 10,5 55 95,5Total number of test cases 0 64 81 81Number of test cases run 0 35 71 80Number of test cases passed 0 8 36 76Number of defects found 0 36 65 60Number of fixed defects 0 36 62 50Number of verified fixes 0 36 62 50
C S M TotalController 1 0 0 1
GUI 19 74 48 141
Model 4 2 1 7
Views 6 6 0 12
Total 30 82 49 161
Unfixed bugs 13 1 critical 5 serious 7 minor
Unit tests: No new tests made Old ones slightly updated Two test cases removed All 53 test cases pass
16
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Quality assessment
Final product satisfies item pass/fail criteria for unit level and acceptance level
It fails on system level, because there are critical and serious issues that are not resolved
Test case TC-3-13 could not be executed, because it requires that the endpoints of the relationships can be dragged with mouse
This also makes test cases TC-3-11 and TC-3-12 fail.
Functional area Coverage Quality Comments
Controller 3 Only one reported defect
GUI 2 Most of the defects here. No unit tests.
Model 2 Nothing serious
Views 3 Nothing serious
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
17
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Software size in Lines of Code (LOC)
PP I1 I2 I3 DETotal – Controller 0 1213 2096 2662 3114Com – Controller 0 315 688 883 1006Total – GUI 0 1586 3782 7757 13245Com – GUI 0 857 277 1614 2443Total – Model 0 1221 5855 6787 7944Com – Model 0 585 2721 3060 3382Total – Views 0 4020 3362 3458 4497Com - Views 0 1757 1341 1281 1725Total 0 4020 14818 22281 28855Comments 0 1757 4750 6838 8587
GUI contains generated code Total LOC/COM without GUI 9465/6144
For comparison Comet data LOC 8987 parts used by us 5858 COM 3466 parts used by us 2626 LOC+COM 12 553 parts used by us 8484
Our underlying code is bigger than the whole Comet code
18
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Project goals
Receive a graphical configuration modeling tool Customer has received the tool
Be able to edit a configuration model (change type-hierarchy and part-hierarchy, edit types etc.)
Be able to view only part of the model Create constraints between different types Create ports and connect ports to each other
Connecting ports does not work, but is not necessary either Good communication with project
Customer is satisfied Stable program, no unexpected crashes Traceability of code to specification and to requirements
Customer did not have time to verify this Group has no experience in this either
Architecturally good product, i.e. module divisions, clean interfaces Customer is satisfied
For the project team to learn why 6,7,8 and 9 are important
19
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Risks
Risk management utilized Riskit method (J. Kontio) Produced risk analysis efficiently Required active monitoring and controlling actions
24 risk were identified and analyzed during the project Most of these during the PP iteration
11 risk materialized Risk rankings: 1-5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 19 2 risks materialized 3 times 5 risks materialized 2 times
Rankings of the materialized risks are high This indicates that risk analysis was successful
Utility losses of the materialized risks decreased a little during the project Risk monitoring and controlling were quite effective
20
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Work practices 1/2
Personal assignments Project progress tracking and control -Eila Configuration management - Tuomo Refactoring- Samuel Heuristic evaluation - Sanna Usability testing - Marko Design patterns - Jan Automated unit testing - Mikko
Hour reporting Some problems in the beginning Trapoli was unstable
Communication practices Internal meetings improved during projects E-mail was major communication tool Talk was used in urgent situations
Risk management Requirements management
Definition done in PP phase Some obsolete requirements, but no new
21
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Work practices 2/2
Architectural design Done by a team Design patterns used
Coding conventions Made code readable Some deviations occasionally
Document reviews First with the whole team - Inefficient Later only few members participated in reviews when needed
Testing Unit and system testing Test manager in charge of things
Bug reporting Done with Bugzilla – usability problems Time consuming
Peer testing Very little use But nice experience