1. Presenting a JUnit Testing Framework to a Multi-University Community Romerl Elizes May 4, 2007

2. Agenda Introduction Introduction Coeus Coeus JUnit Testing Framework JUnit Testing Framework Community of Testers Community of Testers Literature Review Literature Review Relevance Relevance Methodology Methodology Future Work Future Work Questions and Answers Questions and Answers References References

3. Introduction Presentation goals: Presentation goals: will highlight work done on developing a JUnit Testing Framework for the Coeus Application will highlight work done on developing a JUnit Testing Framework for the Coeus Application will explore its applicability to a multi- university community will explore its applicability to a multi- university community introduce the concept of a “Community of Testers” introduce the concept of a “Community of Testers”

4. Coeus Coeus: Coeus: Electronic Research Administration (eRA) system developed by MIT Electronic Research Administration (eRA) system developed by MIT Automates a variety of university research functions: proposal tracking, proposal development, grant tracking, conflict of interests, internal review board, federal electronic submissions, award budgeting, and compliance standards Automates a variety of university research functions: proposal tracking, proposal development, grant tracking, conflict of interests, internal review board, federal electronic submissions, award budgeting, and compliance standards Follows an Open Source Community model called the Coeus Consortium Follows an Open Source Community model called the Coeus Consortium

5. Coeus Coeus Consortium: Coeus Consortium: Participant universities who lack the resources can participate in the Consortium for a nominal annual fee Participant universities who lack the resources can participate in the Consortium for a nominal annual fee Participant universities can download the software binaries and code and customize their deployment based on university needs Participant universities can download the software binaries and code and customize their deployment based on university needs Each university only uses a select number of modules Each university only uses a select number of modules Each university can contribute back to the Consortium if it finds an innovative solution to any issues with the module Each university can contribute back to the Consortium if it finds an innovative solution to any issues with the module Includes 100+ member universities, government agencies, corporations Includes 100+ member universities, government agencies, corporations

6. Coeus Coeus Testing: Coeus Testing: Internal testing mechanism practiced by the developers Internal testing mechanism practiced by the developers One week testing cycle involving select members of Consortium One week testing cycle involving select members of Consortium Fixing bugs by committee vote Fixing bugs by committee vote

7. Coeus Disadvantages: Disadvantages: MIT software development team always on the move to develop product MIT software development team always on the move to develop product Iterative development is not tested properly thus exposing upward compatibility bugs Iterative development is not tested properly thus exposing upward compatibility bugs Limited programming support in member universities Limited programming support in member universities Testing infrastructure is different for each member university Testing infrastructure is different for each member university

8. JUnit Testing Framework Personal responsibilities for Coeus: Personal responsibilities for Coeus: Hired by University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) to support the Coeus eRA Hired by University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) to support the Coeus eRA Introduced business intelligence reporting capabilities non-existent in Coeus product Introduced business intelligence reporting capabilities non-existent in Coeus product Introduced a testing infrastructure that would support university needs Introduced a testing infrastructure that would support university needs

9. JUnit Testing Framework JUnit Testing Framework: JUnit Testing Framework: Suggested by Dr. Fred Grossman and Dr. Joe Bergin in developing software development projects based on JUnit Suggested by Dr. Fred Grossman and Dr. Joe Bergin in developing software development projects based on JUnit JUnit Framework encompasses JUnit, Abbot, Cactus, HtmlUnit, and HttpUnit open source software geared for testing JUnit Framework encompasses JUnit, Abbot, Cactus, HtmlUnit, and HttpUnit open source software geared for testing Coeus Testing for UMDNJ involved: Coeus Testing for UMDNJ involved: Address database table validation (Cactus) Address database table validation (Cactus) Address web content validation (Cactus, HtmlUnit, HttpUnit) Address web content validation (Cactus, HtmlUnit, HttpUnit) Robot automation to test validity of GUI components (Abbot) Robot automation to test validity of GUI components (Abbot)

10. Community of Testers One Tester One Tester Presented the work at Coeus User Group Conference Presented the work at Coeus User Group Conference 1 university 1 university has strengths in a specific set of modules has strengths in a specific set of modules should focus testing its specific set of modules should focus testing its specific set of modules goal is to develop 1 test per day goal is to develop 1 test per day 200 tests for one year 200 tests for one year

11. Community of Testers Many Testers Many Testers 50 universities 50 universities 50 x 200 tests = 10,000 tests in one year 50 x 200 tests = 10,000 tests in one year Author proposed a development of a Coeus Testing Community – a “Community of Testers” Author proposed a development of a Coeus Testing Community – a “Community of Testers” Each university asynchronously develops its own tests Each university asynchronously develops its own tests Contributes them back into the Consortium Contributes them back into the Consortium Contributes to the development and maturity of product Contributes to the development and maturity of product The power of many compensates for the limitations of the one The power of many compensates for the limitations of the one

12. Literature Review Community of Practice (CoP): Community of Practice (CoP): suggests the concept of team infrastructure and multiple overlapping communities for sharing knowledge and standardizing practices (Kahkonen: “Agile Methods for Large Organizations”) suggests the concept of team infrastructure and multiple overlapping communities for sharing knowledge and standardizing practices (Kahkonen: “Agile Methods for Large Organizations”) focuses on communities within a specific location using workshops and team building to foster collaboration focuses on communities within a specific location using workshops and team building to foster collaboration cannot easily be applied to a community of universities which have distance and timing factors that adversely affect collaboration cannot easily be applied to a community of universities which have distance and timing factors that adversely affect collaboration

13. Literature Review Open Source Community/Testing: Open Source Community/Testing: PyPy is an open source project to develop software infrastructure within the European Union (During: “Trouble in Paradise: the Open Source Project PyPy. EU-Funding and Agile Practices”) PyPy is an open source project to develop software infrastructure within the European Union (During: “Trouble in Paradise: the Open Source Project PyPy. EU-Funding and Agile Practices”) Koponen defined a QA process in the Open Source Model (Kopenen: “Evaluation Framework for Open Source Software Maintenance”) Koponen defined a QA process in the Open Source Model (Kopenen: “Evaluation Framework for Open Source Software Maintenance”) Maki-Asiala defined a QA process of Open Source components in a corporate model (Maki-Asiala: “Quality Assurance of Open Source Components Integrator Point of View”) Maki-Asiala defined a QA process of Open Source components in a corporate model (Maki-Asiala: “Quality Assurance of Open Source Components Integrator Point of View”)

14. Relevance Work proposes the idea of a “Community of Testers” Work proposes the idea of a “Community of Testers” Work involves an actual institution with actual stakeholders that will benefit substantially Work involves an actual institution with actual stakeholders that will benefit substantially Work proposes a solution based on limited funding issues that many universities experience Work proposes a solution based on limited funding issues that many universities experience Work supports the marriage of information technology and research administration Work supports the marriage of information technology and research administration

15. Methodology Deployment on Four Linux Servers: Production, Backup, Development and Test Deployment on Four Linux Servers: Production, Backup, Development and Test Tomcat 5.0.2.8 Application Server Tomcat 5.0.2.8 Application Server Oracle 9G Database Server Oracle 9G Database Server Oracle 9G Client on Windows, MacOS, and Linux Oracle 9G Client on Windows, MacOS, and Linux Coeus Application Coeus Application

16. Methodology Testing Methodology Testing Methodology Cactus, HtmlUnit, HttpUnit Cactus, HtmlUnit, HttpUnit 50 tests mostly database-specific ran against each server 50 tests mostly database-specific ran against each server Abbot Abbot 20 GUI tests on proposal and awards tracking, reporting capabilities 20 GUI tests on proposal and awards tracking, reporting capabilities

17. Future Work The future of the Coeus Testing Community: The future of the Coeus Testing Community: MIT and author are in a discussion phase on how to introduce this framework into the Consortium MIT and author are in a discussion phase on how to introduce this framework into the Consortium Expected implementation: March 2008 Expected implementation: March 2008 Work on framework to handle multiple releases Work on framework to handle multiple releases Exploration of other open source methodologies to benefit this framework Exploration of other open source methodologies to benefit this framework

18. References [COE] “Coeus Consortium.” Web site. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2007. Link: http://www.coeus.org/coeus-cons/ [DUR] B. During. “Trouble in Paradise: the Open Source Project PyPy, EU- Funding, and Agile Practices.” In Proceedings of AGILE 2006 Conference (AGILE’06), pp. 221-231. July 2006. [KAH] T. Kahkonen. “Agile Methods for Large Organizations – Building Communities of Practice.” In Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference (ADC 2004), pp. 2-11. June 2004. [KOP] T. Koponen. “Evaluation Framework for Open Source Software Maintenance.” In Proceedings on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA’06), pp. 52. October 2006. [MAK] P. Maki-Asiala, M. Matinlassi. “Quality Assurance of Open Source Components: Integrator Point of View.” In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC’06), pp. 189-194. September 2006.