t-76.115 project review

T-76.115 Project Review

BigBrotherI1 Iteration

1.12.2004

2

T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review

Agenda

Introduction (5 min) Skipped if all review attendees are familiar with the project

Project status (15 min) Achieving the goals of the iteration Project metrics

Work results (10 min) Presenting the iteration’s results Demo

Used work practices (5 min) Next iteration planning (5 min) Discussion

5 min 15min 10min 5min 5min

1

3


Introduction to the project

Customer: Beconnected Finland Ltd. Produces IP-based video surveillance systems for international market Main product: ASAN = Automatic Surveillance and Alarming Network Customer representative: PhD Michael Samarin

Project team: Aino Lahdenperä, Maija Kangas, Outi Syysjoki, Janne Ojala, Antti Alestalo,

Juhani Nokela, Ville Vatén GOAL: Produce tools, which help Beconnected in their customer support

work and reduce costs through increased productivity Three tools will be created:

Watchdog – Automatic monitoring of network cameras HourLogger – Log support person’s work hours per customer/target LogAnalyzer – Search for error patterns from ASAN logs

Beconnected’s goals: Working software is the only thing that matters KISS – Concentrate on simplicity, maintainability, quality. No fancy features Very busy making business – we should bother them as little as possible Minimize costs – all costs should be covered by the attendance fee to SoberIT


3

4


Overview of the problem domain


5

5


Status of the iteration’s goals

Goal 1: Set up development environment OK, except servlet debugger still does not work

Goal 2: Watchdog core functionality We had a slight misroute on the way but are now on the right track Almost there but no QA performed.

Goal 3: Hourlogger core functionality OK, except only minor QA performed yet

Goal 4: LogAnalyzer architecture We have planned, but no official documents exist yet LogAnalyzer UI has not been planned yet

Goal 5: Requirements maintained and detail level increased OK

Goal 6: SEPA practices used and revised Not OK, Usability Tests postponed, No time for Design Patterns, Pair

Programming used slightly, Meeting practices used, but not revised. Goal 7: Quality Assurance plan

OK, but actual QA hasn’t started yet due to resources problems


7

6


Status of the iteration’s deliverables

Project Plan Quality Assurance plan: problems due to Maija’s absense OK

Requirements document OK

Watchdog core functionality Almost there, demonstrated to Beconnected this morning

Watchdog technical specification Sent documentation to Beconnected, but is somewhat outdated

Hourlogger core functionality OK

Hourlogger technical specification OK, sent documentation to Beconnected

Test case document POSTPONED: QA activities have not been started yet

Agreement on legal rights to project deliverables NOT OK. We still don’t have a written contract about the legal rights to the

project deliverables with the customer.


9

7


Realization of the tasks Major discrepancies

Architectural design of too complex system takes time…

Programming slower due to slow debugging cycle…

Development environment setup has really been pain in the ***.

A lot of miscellaneous project communication not budgeted

Not started: Systematic QA postponed

to I2 due to Maija’s absense and slower progress than expected

Still not much effort on SEPAs


11

8


Realization of budget

Monthly allowance of € 100 for miscellaneous well justified project costs

October costs: € 1 for mailing the NDAs $ 43 for buying Core Servlets and JavaServer Pages, Vol. 1 from Amazon

November costs: € 22 for pizza and coke for long weekend coding session € 17.30 for pizza and coke for the final crunch coding session on Monday


12

9


Working hours by person

Maija had to leave Finland and haven’t been able to work at all for the project

Ville had to write the QA plan and has also performed design, testing and development environment setup.

Aino’s figure is more than 38 hours… Work distribution among members has equalized since PP

Realized hours in this iteration


13

10


Working hours by person

Shifted weight from the FD iteration to I2 iteration.

It’ll be interesting to see can Maija gain on us her lost hours in I1

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

Latest plan (realized hours, updates up and down)


14

11


Quality metrics

Full controlled QA has not started yet Concentration on the architecture and core functionality Only minimal error handling implemented currently

I1 I2 FD TotalReported 11 11Closed 4 4Open 7

Bug metrics

Blockers Critical Major Normal Minor Trivial Enhancement

Total

Total open 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 7This iteration reported

0 0 0 1 2 1 3 7


15

12


Quality assessment

Functional area Coverage Quality Comments

Requirements Document

2 Improving all the time

Project Plan 2 Has been reviewed

Development Environment

2 Works and has been used

Watchdog 0 Core functionality almost ready, not tested

HourLogger 1 Core functionality ready and tested quickly

SEPA documents 1 Only the minimal stuff exists yet

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 5 min 15min 10min 5min 5min

16

13


Software size in Lines of Code (LOC)

Concentrated on architecture and core functionality Not all the lines here are actual live code Code refactoring needed

PP I1 I2 FD

Watchdog java classes 0 2910

Watchdog JSPs 0 970

HourLogger JSPs 0 851

LogAnalyzer JSPs 0 0

Testing and example JSPs 0 201

Utils 0 1882

Other 0 134

Total (NCLOC + COM) 0 6948


17

14


Risks

Risks Maija’s absense affects our QA activities => forced to postpone most of it to I2 Development environment

An old computer running in Ville’s wardrobe Work is highly dependent on working Trinet and Aalto

Also needed for the demo in the project review NDA is very strict

We can not publish something critical to the course We may publish something that breaches the NDA

Busy schedules among group members Potential communication problems Quality problems among team member deliverables


19

15


Changes to the project

Iteration 1 was turned into prototyping and architecture implementation QA was postponed to I2-FD due to Maija’s absence More critical to get the functionality working than QA at this point

Small changes to requirements Natural process of refining customer needs and finding out new requirements


20

16


Results of the iteration

Watchdog demonstration

HourLogger demonstration


20

17


Watchdog

Watchdog Monitors status of network camera on predefined intervals Alarms when malfunction occurs Records historical data of network camera statuses and erases old data

Architecture We were building too complex system and wasted time Now everything seems to be on the right track…

Implemented functionality Background process: Fetches images from cameras and analyzes them Camera list: Lists cameras and their current and past status Camera info: Basic functionality is there, easy to expand Configuration

User is able to change some parameters Not all parameters implemented yet

Not implemented Alarms and their configuration

QA has not started yet due to Maija’s absense


22

18


Demonstration

Watchdog We’ll show you how background process works (by breaking up cameras!) You’ll see the main view of the system and camera info view Camera IPs have been censored to protect customer IP


27

19


HourLogger

HourLogger Logs technician's work hours per customer, per target and per work type Produces reports of the recorded work tasks

Architecture This is not rocket science More focus will be paid on the usability

Implemented functionality Input work tasks and types Overview of worktypes Usability tuning still needed. This will be continued in I2

Not implemented Reports, Exporting, Customer/target management

Only minimal QA performed All problems found have been easily fixed


28

20


Demonstration

HourLogger Inserting a new performed check Showing the overview of performed checks per customer and target


30

21


Used work practices

Time reporting in Trapoli Still difficulties in time logging: dividing working hours and usability

Development server in Ville’s clothes closet Problems with Trinet… Long development cycle Difficult debugging

Meetings Worked well, but still scheduling problems among group members

Risk management Risks have been managed, but not documented very well…

Requirements elicitation and analysis Continued with the same style than in PP phase

Group working sessions Group architectural design sessions Group user interface design sessions Group coding sessions with a couple of pair programmin sessions

Coding convention Not complete Nobody has completely followed the guidelines


35

22


Iteration I2 Goals

Generic goals: Quality Assurance really started now Code refactoring needed Coding convention, commenting, documenting improved

Watchdog & HourLogger & LogAnalyzer goals Minimum requirements functionality ready and fully tested Test installation in customer’s test environment Usability tests performed with customer representative with actual work tasks

SEPA goals: Pair programming sessions on most critical use cases Usability tests performed for all deliverables Design patterns used in refactoring Meeting practices are reviewed and improved

Iteration I2 divided to two sub-iterations Three weeks development, then installation to customers environment One week for customers internal testing and commenting One week for applying customer’s feedback back into the products


39

23


Questions?


40

t-76.115 project review

Documents

project reviewstatus

project reviewrealization

project reviewintroduction

project reviewoverview

project deliverablesnot

minor qa

qa activities

actual qa