T Final Demo BaseByters

T Final demo 2 Agenda  Project introduction (5 min)  Project status (5 min)  achieving the goals of the project  Work results (20 min)  presenting the system  demo  Project review (15 min)  Discussion (5 min)

T Final demo 3 Introduction to the project – customer and the need  Customer: Nokia Networks / Service Business Unit  Nokia SBU provides products and services to network operators. This project relates to SBU’s product called NetAct Optimizer which enables network operator to manage and optimise its network.  Customer representatives:  Jari Jyrävä – business issues  Antti Ahonen – technical issues  The need:  When a new version of customer’s product, NetAct Optimizer, is installed it requires underlying Oracle database to be upgraded as well. Typically the exact structure of the database is not know as it may have been changed. This can cause problems as the database structure must be according to defined structure to enable successful upgrade.  The solution:  Tool that investigates the structure of the existing database and modify it to meet the defined structure

T Final demo 4 Introduction to project – the team and stakeholders Mgmt Team Jukka Kurkinen PM Sami Saariaho LD Tapio Janasik QA Janne Ruskeeniemi Dev RE, DataBase, Java Semi Arajuuri Dev DataBase, SQL Sun Jian Dev Java, testing Pu Fan Dev Java, XML, testing Customer Jari Jyrävä (business) Antti Ahonen (technical) Mentor Markus Rautopuro

T Final demo 5 System overview – use cases

T Final demo 6 System overview – components and services Components and services of the system:

T Final demo 7 System overview – core architecture Core architecture of the system:

T Final demo 8 System overview – DEMO

T Final demo 9 Project review – UC deliverables OK

T Final demo 10 Status of the customer’s goals GoalVerification criteria StatusComments 1. All high priority requirements are working All high priority requirements related test cases passed. NOKTwo high priority requirements partly implemented: Functional requirement “Tool should handle common database objects” was partly implemented as triggers, schema upgrade and uninstall were not implemented. Non functional requirement “The tool should be highly reliable” was partly implemented as some bugs remained open. 2.All medium priority requirements are working All medium priority requirements related test cases passed. OK 3. Amount of support given to project group according to budget. The customer’s time report indicates the budgeted amount of hours, or less. OK 4. Documentation available according to Requirements Document. Documentation defined in Requirements Document is available and accepted by the customer. OK

T Final demo 11 Status of the project team’s goals GoalVerification criteria Status 1. Passing the course with good grade Official transcript with grade 5.Pending 2. Delivered project end product satisfies the customer Customer acceptance with positive feedback. Pending 3. Able to deliver product according to original requirement document All requirements defined in requirement document are fulfilled. NOK, some requirements partly implemented as marked in customer goals

T Final demo 12 Project review – document deliverables  Project plan  OK  QA plan  OK  Requirements document  OK  Technical specification  OK  Test cases, test report and test log  OK  Peer test charters and test reports  OK  User manual  OK  Final report  OK  SEPA diaries  OK

T Final demo 13 Project review - Working hours Project hours per function Cumulative project hours Project hours per person PPI1I2Total actual Total plan Diff JKu 5550,584189,5190-0,5 TJa 23, 5 88,578,5190,51900,5 SSa JRu 22, ,2147,7150-2,3 SAr 391, ,51908,5 SJi 182, ,51902,5 PFu ,5192,51902,5 Total ,21307, ,5  Budget fulfilled – 1,3% overwork  Equally distributed hours  Meetings very emphasized

T Final demo 14 Project review - Quality metrics I I1I2Total Reported Closed Open -44 Bug metrics BlockCrashMajorMinorTweakTotal Total open This iteration reported BlockCrashMajorMinorTweakTotal Conf.Services 112 DataAccess 246 Error Handling 112 File I/O 11 Log Services 112 SQL Services 437 UI 2226 GUI XML Services 2417

T Final demo 15 Project review - Quality metrics II Other QA metrics  unit test coverage: 74% (41% for I1) (Coverlipse)  calculated using unit test suite  help methods (for testing for examle) not covered  Core –functionality tested with integration test suite (69% coverage)  GUI not JUnit tested (tested during system tests)  code reviews  Static analysis:  source code metrics  See page 15 No blocking or crashing bugs found in iteration 2.

T Final demo 16 Project review - Quality assessment by components Functional component CoverageQualityComments UI3 Reliable and fault tolerant. Data Access2 Looks good. Error handling2 Looks good. File I/O2 Looks good. Logging3 Looks good. SQL service2 Bug fixing done, looks good. Open open issue. XML service2 Lots of bug fixing done, looks good. One issue open. Core2 We are doing alright. GUI3 Two minor issues to fix. Otherwise fault tolerant. Conf. services2 We are doing alright. Legend Coverage: Quality: 0 = nothing  = quality is good 1 = we looked at it  = not sure 2 = we checked all functions  = quality is bad 3 = it’s tested

T Final demo 17 Project review - Software size in Lines of Code (LOC) PPI1I2 UI / Command line0425 /- 912/ 68% UI / GUI446 /- 3261/ - Core842 /80% 1696/ 69% Data Access0296 /- 947/ 79% File I/O064 /45% 72/ 84% Logging058 /60% 58/ 83% SQL service0256 /76% 563/ 84% XML service0552 /69% 1004/ 76% Help service0-45/ 65% Conficuration services042 /39% 42/ 72% Total LOC, DbUpgrader Unit tests LOC Total LOC Total Unit Test Coverage (unit test code not included) 41%74%

T Final demo 18 Project review - Risks  Risk status:

T Final demo 19 Project review – experiences, learning  Project progress  Project start was fast and effective  Work hours delivered constantly through the whole project  Meetings were critical to ensure the smooth progress – note meeting hours  Iterative development  First not familiar to all team members, fast adopted though  Slightly too little implementation in I1 -> criticality of I2 emphasized  Communication  Was quite effective throughout the project  Wiki used for meeting memo delivery and discussions  Subversion used for document and SW store and delivery  Version control necessary!  Challenges  Architecture done based on assumptions that changed later (support for other DBs)  Oracle PL SQL is very challenging  project’s key component  Lack of customer presence -> not clear indication where to go

T Final demo 20 Questions, comments?