T Iteration Demo Team DTT I1 Iteration

T Iteration demo 2 Agenda  Project status (10 min)  achieving the goals of the iteration  project metrics  Work results (20 min)  Project plan  Requirements document  Used work practices (5 min)

T Iteration demo 3 Introduction to the X-Connector project (1/2)  Domain: process simulation, simulation model with several simulation engines (cluster)  Deliverables:  a user interface for defining data exchange between the cluster members  a test server environment for prototyping the data exchange  data synchronization scheme  Technology:  web service technology based on OPC specifications  user interface as an Eclipse plug-in

T Iteration demo 4 Introduction to the X-Connector project (2/2)  The customer of the project is VTT Industrial Systems  Prioritized objectives: 1. User interface implementation and test server to store data exchange connection information 2. Synchronisation implementation for the test server cluster

T Iteration demo 5 Status of the iteration’s goals  Goal 1: Design core architecture:  OK: Components of the software (UI, DX interface, servers) are defined more thoroughly, key components’ design is finalized  Goal 2: Plan and document quality assurance activities and practices  OK: Documented in project plan chapter 5.2  Goal 3: Produce a first working version of the software with some core functionality  OK: User interface with limited functionality  Partially completed: static DX-configuration, test server  Goal 4: Improve working methods  OK: communication improved (MS Messenger, Wiki), more effective meeting practices used  Goal 5: Create / update SEPA diaries  OK  Goal 6: Produce the plan for Implementation iteration 2  OK: planning on general level done, more specific plan will be delivered in the beginning of I2

T Iteration demo 6 Status of the iteration’s deliverables (1/2) Documents:  Updated project plan  OK: chapter 5.2 Quality assurance added, document updated  Updated requirements document  OK: descriptions of selected use cases added  Technical specification  OK: updated version of the document  Test cases, test report and test log  UI tests OK, but testing for the integrated system could not be done  Updated SEPA diaries  OK: All practices were used in I1  User’s instructions  OK: Initial version of the user’s manual  Progress report  OK

T Iteration demo 7 Status of the iteration’s deliverables (2/2) Software:  User interface (limited functionality)  Create a workspace (UC1.1): OK  Add/remove clusters (UC2.1, UC2.3): Unfinished  Add servers to clusters (UC3.1): OK  Add and remove connection groups (UC5.1, UC5.2): Unfinished  Add and remove connections to groups (UC5.4, 5.5): Unfinished  Browse OPC servers (UC8.1): OK  TestSimulator Data Access  Browsing of servers: OK  Provides simulated server information from a static source: OK  Provides dummy data: OK  Data eXchange (UC4.1 – UC6.2)  Provides DX web service interface: OK  DXConfigurationWrapper: Removed (integrated in DXConfiguration)  OPC XML DXKit: OK  TestSimulator Data eXchange  DX features: Unfinished

T Iteration demo 8 Realization of the tasks (1/2)  Status and effort distribution per task group ( )  44 tasks in total, 3 added during the iteration  Remaining effort of project management for iteration demo and I2 planning  Remaining effort of programming mainly for task ”Implement Server DX Functionality” which didn’t finish on time  Remaining effort of QA for task ”Test DX configuration as a system” which was postponed to I2  SEPA-practices, especially heuristic evaluation, are more suitable to be used in I2

T Iteration demo 9 Realization of the tasks (2/2)  Realized effort smaller than estimated (~425h vs. 514h)  Effort needed to achieve the goals would have been ~460h

T Iteration demo 10 Working hours by person  Coding was started one week behind the schedule  20% of the effective development time lost  Christmas vacation will be (at least) one week shorter..  Separate components could not be integrated, because one DX component did not finish on time  System testing could not be done (Ville and Tomi could not use 20 budgeted hours) Realized hours in this iteration

T Iteration demo 11 Working hours by person Realized hours in I1 iterationPlan in the beginning of this iteration Latest plan  51% of the effort used at the moment  Work done during christmas vacation is counted to I2

T Iteration demo 12 Quality metrics  No critical or blocker bugs found  4 unfixed defects at the moment (all minor)  Weekly code reviews I1I2Total Reported 44 Closed 00 Open 44 Bug metrics BlockersCriticalMajorMinorTrivialTotal Total open This iteration reported

T Iteration demo 13 Quality assessment  User interface showed good quality  No blocker, critical or major defects!  Thorough testing of implemented features  Only 4 minor defects were found  OPC XML DXKit has been tested only by the developers during the development process  Formal test session will be arranged after the integration  Quality of the implemented software modules is good, but the integration has not yet been made. Thus, no conclusions of the quality as a system can be made Functional areaCoverageQualityComments User interface2 Test session arranged, 4 minor defects found OPC XML DXKit1  Briefly tested by the developer TestServer2 Test session arranged, no bugs found 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

T Iteration demo 14 Software size in Lines of Code (LOC) as of 4.12  The numbers for each component shows the LOC without comments. The percentage indicates the amount of comments of the total LOC.  The PP column shows LOC for the code provided by the customer  DXConfiguration and OPC XML DX Kit contain auto generated code as well as user code  As this project contains both auto generated code and code obtained from the customer, it is not very easy to use this as a reliable metric.  It is, however, interesting touse this for comparing the code output in different components. PPI1I2 User interface / Eclipse plugin-3174 (16%)- Test Server450 (44%)5178 (19%)- OPC XML DX Kit (5%)- DXConfiguration (18%)- Total (NCLOC + COM) 450 (44%)40554(9%)- Comments (COM)

T Iteration demo 15 Changes to the project  Goals of the project  Implementation of the fast data access was removed  Goals of the coming iterations  Some features planned for I1 not yet finished and have to be postponed  We will finish most of these before the official start of I2  Synchronization scheme is the main goal of I2  Requirements  New requirements added  Many requirements have been re-specified during I1  Technologies  Client side web service functions implemented in Java/Axis instead of C++/gSoap  DXConfigurationWrapper removed

T Iteration demo 16 Risks  Current situation regarding the risks  Risk log in the project plan: 10 risks with their effects, estimated impacts and probabilities, persons responsible  2 risks realized during I1  The customer’s CVS server was inaccessible for a week and delayed the start of development work  Problems in understanding the project domain caused delays  Identified risks  A team member quits in the middle of the project or something happens (accident, sickness etc.)  New technologies cause problems  The customer is developing some software components that will be used in the project but fails to deliver them in time  Requirements change in the middle of the project  Workload of the whole project is underestimated  Workload of iteration I1 is underestimated and (software) deliverables won’t finish on time  Developed software components are incompatible  One of the group members has difficulties to stay on schedule  Difficulties in understanding the project domain  Problems with the customer’s CVS server

T Iteration demo 17 Results of the iteration  System architecture  Updated requirements document  QA plan  Demonstration of the developed software

T Iteration demo 18 System architecture  The system consists of a server and a user interface  The server is implemented in C++ and the UI components in Java

T Iteration demo 19 Requirements document  Functional requirements  21 (and 1 deleted) functional requirements  New functional requirements have been added  Existing requirements have been re-specified  Use cases  31 (and 4 deleted) use cases  Many additions during I1  Existing use cases have been re-specified  Use case IDs have been renamed  Use case list has been re-organized  Detailed descriptions of selected use cases  Non-functional requirements  No changes

T Iteration demo 20 QA plan  1 test session  Software modules (except UI) were tested only by the developers (no test sessions)  System integration was postponed  the whole system couldn’t be tested  BugZilla wasn’t really used during I1  No real need, because there has been only 1 developer per module  Bugs found in the test session have been reported to BugZilla  Weekly code reviews were held  No defects found in code reviews  Good for coming up with solution ideas and for keeping the management team up-to-date

T Iteration demo 21 Demo script  Server  Start the server  Use the server specification text file as a parameter  Locate IP address of server  User interface & Server  Start up the user interface in Eclipse  Connect to the first DA server, OPC foundation’s test server   (or in case it is not online,  Port 80  Connect to the Test server  Port 8081  Browse the DA trees  Open subtrees  Show properties  Drag & Drop nodes between the two servers  Enter needed attributes in the window which is opened

T Iteration demo 22 Used work practices  Practices used in I1 iteration  Iterative development: OK  Iteration planning: OK, task list had to be updated several times  Documenting: OK  Risk management: Risk log updated  Time reporting: Effort management tool was used to produce status reports weekly  Size reporting: OK  Version control: CVS in use, all versions of the documents was published in project’s web site  Communication: Problems of the PP-iteration were tackled with Messenger and Wiki  Meeting practices: Weekly meetings more effective than in PP  Defect tracking: BugZilla will be used more in I2  Heuristic evaluation: SEPA-topic  Refactoring: SEPA-topic

T Iteration demo 23 Thank you! Any questions?