Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

T-76.115 Project Review SOLIData I2 Iteration 2005-FEB-08.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "T-76.115 Project Review SOLIData I2 Iteration 2005-FEB-08."— Presentation transcript:

1 T Project Review SOLIData I2 Iteration 2005-FEB-08

2 T Project Review 2 Agenda  Project status (20 min) - Arttu  Overview on the iteration – Arttu  Goals – Arttu  Realization of Tasks – Arttu  Working Hours – Arttu  LOCs – Janne  Quality - Mikko  Risks – Markus  Change management – Markus  Work practices – Arttu  Work results (25 min)  presenting the iteration’s results  Releases  DEMO  Plan for Next Iteration FD (5 min) - Arttu  Questions/Discussion etc (10 min)

3 T Project Review 3 Introduction to the project  This project focuses on producing single-click Bluetooth connectivity between Symbian OS mobile device and Bluegiga server. The idea is to enable video streaming for smart phones in public places (e.g. train, bus).

4 T Project Review 4 Overview on the iteration  A successfully two mini-increment’s plan conducted in the I2 iteration (not successful in I1)  Increased quality  The 1 st test round revealed nasty bugs which we were not aware  we had time to fix some of founded bugs of 1 st testing round  Motivation  The motivation was kept up because of clear mid-milestones  Early in move  The mid-milestones forced continuous work  We had good start in the I2, better than in I1  Plan + requirements were all set before Christmas vacation  Design + implementation was started during Christmas time  Original plan was to start implementation before Christmas  this was over-optimisms  We (almost everybody) had relaxing Christmas vacation – as planned  The team members have had long absences (unreachable)  Arttu: 2004-DEC-15 – 2005-JAN-16  Heikki: 2005-JAN-13 – 2005-FEB-21  Pekka: 2005-FEB-01   Internal milestones were updated once during iteration  We had buffer in internal plan as response to changing conditions  Testing was completed on time  1st round: 6 bugs found (2 critical, 2 major)  2nd round: 5 bugs found (0 critical, 2 major)  Two additional testing packets released  The goal of the iteration is very well filled

5 T Project Review 5 Overview on the iteration – milestone update DeliverableDeadline (changes bolded) I2 iteration planning for customer/mentorTue 2004-DEC-14 Requirements for I2 refinedThu 2004-DEC-16 1 st testing releaseMon 2005-JAN-24 – 18:00 1 st testing round resultsThu 2005-JAN-27 Test specification for customer reviewFri 2004-JAN-28 2 nd testing releaseTue 2005-FEB-01 – 18:00 2 nd testing round resultsFri 2005-FEB-04 Delivery of increment’s deliverables for customer reviewThu 2005-FEB-03 Document walkthroughsMon 2005-FEB-07 Delivery of documents to customer/mentorTue 2005-FEB-08 Updated

6 T Project Review 6 Status of the iteration’s goals  Goal 1: Easy delivery  ” Two empty access points can be set up using memory stick. The YES mobile application can be used from the both access points so that re-installation is not needed when changing the access point ”  Goal 2: Configurable  New requirements to make the APP configurable  Goal 3: Fix bugs founded in I1  Mainly fixed (bug #5 not fixed)

7 T Project Review 7 Status of the iteration’s deliverables  Configurable version of the system implemented  OK, selected requirements filled   some bugs still open  Added 2 smaller requirements during the iteration  Project Plan  Minor updates to update iteration plans, current version 1.44  OK, except detailed plans for FD iteration  Risk Management  3 closed risks  Requirements document  3 CRs (change request), current version 1.41  Technical Specification  Complete, review held for version 1.1 (current 1.2)  Admin user manual  Complete, review held for version 0.2 (current 0.4)  Testing overview for I2  System Test Plan and Report (includes test log)  2 plans+reports from both testing rounds  Progress Report for I2  Architecture Design  No updates

8 T Project Review 8 Realization of the tasks Unplanned

9 T Project Review 9 Realization of the tasks  Design workshop was used  Efficient  Implementation time was overrun by 37%  Extremely difficult to estimate  Bug fixes etc was not taken care well enough in the beginning  New subtasks were added during iteration (e.g. INF:Maintenance)  This includes also some ‘studying’ hours, because it's hard to separate between studying and implementation. Learn by doing

10 T Project Review 10 Working hours by person  Janne was sick for 1 week  Markus moved to new apartment  no internet connection, yet  Pekka’s hours were counted incorrectly  -6 hours for the iteration (383h vs. 377h) Realized hours in this iteration RealPlanDiff Arttu 30,3300,3 Heikki Tommy 4849 Pekka 79,3781,3 Janne 58,373-14,7 Mikko 58,8553,8 Markus 57,868-10,3 Total 360, ,5

11 T Project Review 11 Working hours by person  Overall, we followed the plan quite well!  Markus, Janne have more to do in FD iteration  more resources in peer- testing Realized hours in this iterationPlan in the beginning of this iteration PPI1I2 Subtot FDTotal Arttu Heikki Tommy Pekka Janne Mikko Markus Total Latest plan (inc. realized hours and other updates) PPI1I2 Subtot FDTotal Arttu Heikki Tommy Pekka Janne Mikko Markus Total RealPlanDiff Arttu 30,3300,3 Heikki Tommy 4849 Pekka 79,3781,3 Janne 58,373-14,7 Mikko 58,8553,8 Markus 57,868-10,3 Total 360, ,5

12 T Project Review 12 Software size in Lines of Code (LOC) PPI1I2FD Total (NCLOC + COM) Comments (COM) PPI1I2FD CCommDbDump (implemented as separate testing software) 0180 /2 197 /2 CYesAOLoader 0097 /29 CYesApp 0015 /29 CYesAppUi 0069 /47 CYesConfig /206 CYesContainer 0963 / /390 CYesDocument 0242 / /112 TYesIndex 0034 /2 CYesProfile /23 Total (NCLOC + COM) Comments (COM) More detailed table

13 T Project Review 13 Software size (Continued)  The basis for the YES-App is OfficeAgent  Current implementation has reduced the dependencies for the original code   practically everything has been written again, own code   this is reason for reduced number of LOCs   Removed unneeded code from OfficeAgent

14 T Project Review 14 Bug ID severityend of I1 ( ) test round #1 ( ) test round #2 (4.2.05) 4 MinorOpen Fixed 5 MajorOpen 6 TrivialOpenFixed 7 EnhancementRe-evaluateOpenFixed 9 EnhancementRe-evaluateFixed 10 Minor--OpenWon’t fix 11 Minor--OpenNot verified 13 Critical--Open 14 Major--Open 15 Critical--OpenFixed 16 Enhancement-- Open 17 Minor-- Open 18 Major-- Open 19 Major-- Open 20 Enhancement-- Open 21 Minor-- Open Bug history

15 T Project Review 15 bug ID severitydescriptioncost (h) 5majorUser cannot receive the installation package if some other user is at the state where he selects if he accepts the installation package from AP. 3? 13criticalApplication crashes if it tries to contact to some other BT then the AP.10 14majorApplication crashes if no appropriately named BT devices are found.7 16enhance ment Application crashes if prefix is too long.5 17minor Reading empty values from the configuration file does not work. 1 18major Application crashes after going out of range majorChanges in the AP's BT name may not reach the application.* 20enhance mnt The GPL license file could not be read with default software.* 21minor URL longer then 50 crashes the program.3 Open bugs and estimated cost to fix

16 T Project Review 16 Quality assessment 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 Functional areaCoverageQualityComments YES Application3  Few major bugs still exist, but these are extreme cases. Functionalities are ok. Access point3  Not tested with more then two phones. Deployment ok. Streaming server2  All ok.  We could not test with many phones (>2) because additional phones were not available early enough.   to be conducted in FD iteration

17 T Project Review 17 Quality - Description of configurable version?  YES Application  UI improved – nicer graphics  Improved BT connection handling, e.g. in closing the App.  Tested with multiple phones, and with very ‘nasty’ settings in them  Testing was performed also from security point of view  more ‘interesting’ test cases  Access Point  Can be released using USB stick  Does not include WRAP upgrading  Streaming Server  No modifications during I2.

18 T Project Review 18 Risks  Open risks  Technology – 0 risks  Development environment – 2 risks  Requirements – 1 risk  Resources - 3 risks  Implementation – 1 risk  Changes  Tech_Risk_1 (”Bluetooth driver”)  CLOSED  Tech_Risk_2 (”Properties of devices”)  CLOSED  Rsc_Risk_1 (”Too many hours planned for iteration I1”)  CLOSED  Impl_Risk_1 (”Responsibilities unknown”), propability MEDIUM  LOW

19 T Project Review 19 Change Management  Change request (CR1) opened to improve ’one-click’ requirement  Opened in I1  CANCELLED  CR2 has another approach for that one (configurable)  Change request (CR2) opened to improve requirements for I2  ACCEPTED  Missing implementation for improved one-click configurable  Change request (CR3) opened to define BT connection requirement better, and add GPL license text into the APP  ACCEPTED

20 T Project Review 20 Requirement Management  WLAN requirements are still in req spec  Streaming server has requirement for broadcast streaming  not going to be done  Non-functional requirements (NFRs) almost implemented  not tested Legend N (M) N = # of requirements implemented M = total # of requirements

21 T Project Review 21 Used work practices  New practices used in I2  Started to use own task for bug fixings (mentor proposed)  Improved bug analyzing  price added for each bug (mentor proposed)  Weekly code release for the customer  Pair programming in mobile application  Requirement matrix  status of each requirement

22 T Project Review 22 Results of the iteration  Major deliverables of the I2 iteration  Configurable version of the system  Missing implementation for improved one-click configurable  Admin user manual  Test plan & reports  Minor deliverables  Review report  Change requests (3 pcs)  Updates  Project Plan  Requirements Specification  Architecture Design  Technical Specification  SEPAs

23 T Project Review 23 DEMO

24 T Project Review 24 FD iteration  Risks in FD iteration:  Pekka in Australia (not available anymore for the project)  absence of Mikko, Markus & Tommy at end of iteration. Especially Mikko missing at second testing phase   Janne, Heikki to cover

25 T Project Review 25 Questions/Discussion DEMO Requirements Testing Results – used effort Implementation FD iteration


Download ppt "T-76.115 Project Review SOLIData I2 Iteration 2005-FEB-08."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google