T Iteration Demo MapGuide based Web Edit Interface I2 Iteration

T Iteration demo 2 Agenda  Project status (10 min) ‏  achieving the goals of the iteration  project metrics  Work results (20 min) ‏  presenting the iteration’s results  demo  Used work practices (10 min) ‏

T Iteration demo 3 Introduction to the project  What is this project about?  Web edit interface that should work side-by-side with an existing product  Used to edit route data in Novapoint IRIS database  Technical details: uses MapGuide API to interact with Oracle Spatial database

T Iteration demo 4 Status of the iteration’s goals  Deliver a prototype with insert, move, move points and delete functionality for point and four-point polygon by  OK  Deliver a working program with all planned primary functionality with satisfactory appearance and usability.  OK  Deliver the needed documentation.  OK  Improve the usage of the SVN.  OK  Perform the necessary refactoring to ensure that the prototype is easy to develop further.  OK  Spend the programming hours in a way where most hours are done in the beginning of the iteration and the amount decreases towards the end.  Partly OK. A good amount of hours were spent before the I2 customer demo, but after that there were some slow weeks. Also in the last few weeks there have been a lot of programming, even though some of it has been refactoring.  Spend all the budgeted programming hours.  OK.

T Iteration demo 5 Status of the iteration’s deliverables  Program  OK, of course it has a lot more stuff to develop though  Project plan  OK  Requirements document  OK  Technical specification  OK  Test cases, QA report and test log  OK  Peer test session charters with exploration logs (prepared for and by the peer group)  OK  Peer test summaries (prepared for and by the peer group)  OK  User's manual  OK  Final report  OK  Slides for the iteration demo  OK  T : SEPA diaries  OK

T Iteration demo 6 Realization of the tasks  Commit/rollback code. Transfers modifications between temporary layer and database. (30h) (Khaled Chowdhury)  23h, some what accurate.  Temporary layers. Provides temporary layers instead of actual for modification. (35h) (Klaus Lehtonen)  32h, probably a quite accurate.  Configuration files. Contains any configuration info needed. (15h) (Klaus Lehtonen)  14h, probably a quite accurate.  Localization files. Contains all text displayed. (7h) (Klaus Lehtonen)  0h, the program hasn’t been localized.  Add spatial objects. (10h) (Olli Loikkanen)  27h, with all the temporary layer/transaction stuff, addition was more complex than presumed.  Modify spatial objects. (10h) (Olli Loikkanen)  22h, with all the temporary layer/transaction stuff, edit functions were more complex than presumed.  Delete spatial objects. (5h) (Olli Loikkanen)  5h, some of the hours are probably contained in add and modify tasks.  JavaScript. Provides functions to draw and edit the spatial objects. (35h) (Antti-Iivari Kainulainen)  8h, cannot be accurate.  Refactoring (40h) (Antti Nummipuro)  28h, probably a quite accurate. These in total account 159 hours, which is ~45% of total programming hours. In the I1 the task based tracking was working quite badly, so we assume that in I2, around 75% of programming hours were inserted for tasks. The task based tracking could have worked better if the tasks were flexible and changeable by developers. This would have favoured exact tracking at expense of tracking estimates.

T Iteration demo 7 Resource usage Original plan (in the beginning of the iteration)‏ Realization and updated plan MemberPPI1I2Total Matti Manninen Antti Nummipuro Janne Varjus Khaled Chowdhury Antti-Iivari Kainulainen Klaus Lehtonen Olli Loikkanen Total MemberPPI1I2Total Matti Manninen Antti Nummipuro Janne Varjus Khaled Chowdhury Antti-Iivari Kainulainen Klaus Lehtonen Olli Loikkanen Total

T Iteration demo 8 Changes to the project  No major changes.  Using temporary layers for transactions did cause a lot of technical changes though.

T Iteration demo 9 Risks  Most notable changes from last iteration are luckily positive. In last iteration we identified the following active risks and the measures against them seem to have worked:  SVN usage. It has now been used widely.  Task based hour tracking. The amount of tracked task hours has increased a lot. The is still much room for improvement.

T Iteration demo 10 Results of the iteration  Content of deliverable documents  Project plan – few updates, new content has been entered to other documents so it is easier to find the new text.  Requirement specification – updated to match the current situation.  Technical specification – covers the functionality and usage of the program well.  Test cases – defines also the usual use cases at the same time.  QA documents – cover the testing related issues in detail.  user’s manual – covers the usage of the program from user point of view.  Demonstration  Following the test cases we show the current status of the program.

T Iteration demo 11 Used work practices  We have described our usage of different practices in the Reflection Workshop Report. The practices that we had most positive experiences were  Wiki sprint logs (in Communication chapter)  Refactoring  Coding sessions