1 UDME Unit Development, Measurement and Efforts A programmer‘s experience What is possible?

2 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Agenda q Problem q Process q Steps and Tests q System q Efforts q Errors q Measures q Conclusion

3 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts The Problem Too expensive... Too difficult... Too long... Too... Too...

4 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Process

5 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Basics for Start: Details

6 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Standard Test: Details

7 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Measured Quality: Details

8 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Algorithm

9 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Asserts assert ( tabel space ) assert ( overflow ) assert ( compiler restriction ) assert ( declaration of table limits ) assert ( underflow )

10 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Standard Test Case Tree (in Parts) low = high + - more than one x i  a Asserts are tested separately. i = low no x i  a x i > a x i = a !

11 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Planning the System Per Level  Order of importance  Conditions sine qua non

12 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Implementing the System  Hardest first  Bottom up  Complete sub tree  Independent first  Condition first  Sub tree first

13 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Selected Location Parameter Data collected: # of modules: 168  Effort in minutes  Size in editor lines  Maintenance index no dimension

14 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Particular Efforts

15 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Efforts Groups

16 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Errors Benefit dynamic measurement  5:1

17 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Maintenance Measuring Measure Tool Formula

18 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Comment and MI

19 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Regions of Maintenance More than 95 % of the modules have at least a fair maintainability index. Benefit of static measurement

20 Unit Development, Measurement and Efforts Effort and Poor Maintenance Within poor region HP (n=5 %=2.98) Effort Type- --Group--- Percent mean part mean all- Basic Std. Test Measurement Sum Effort

21 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Effort and Fair Maintenance Within fair region HP (n=28 %=16.67) Effort Type- --Group--- Percent mean part mean all- Basic Std. Test Measurement Sum Effort

22 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Effort and Excellent Maintenance Within excellent region HP (n=135 %=80.36) Effort Type- --Group--- Percent mean part mean all- Basic Std. Test Measurement Sum Effort Honi soit qui mal y pense!

23 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts It is possible... To develop programs so that  Measuring requires less than 5 % of the effort,  Test reach a code coverage of 100% LCSAJs within less than 2 % of the effort,  Source codes fulfils the high level quality requirements without any additional effort for 98 % of the modules,  An excellent maintainability is achieved with less effort per module than the mean value for more than 80 % of the modules,  A poor maintainability appears for less than 3 % of the modules and  Quality benefits are earned during the development process.

24 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts