T Project Review Rajoitteiset I2 Iteration

T Project Review 2 Agenda  Project status (15 min)  Achieving the goals of the iteration  Status of the deliverables  Resource usage  Changes to the project  Risk review  Work practices (5 min)  Completed work (5 min)  Presenting the iteration’s results and deliverables more precisely  Project plan  Requirement specification  Technical specification  Test report  Demo of Lmodels (10 min)  Plans for the next iteration (10 min)

T Project Review 3 Status of planned goals of the iteration  Goal 7 (from I1): Building the basis of the client  OK  Goal 1: Optimizing the model to shorten the processing time  Not performed so far  Goal 2: Implementation of the linearisator  OK  Goal 3: Implementation of the wrapper for the solver  Mostly OK  Goal 4: Building the graphical user interface  Functional, but limited  Goal 5: Implementing the client-server structure  OK

T Project Review 4 Status of planned deliverables of the iteration  Project plan  Updated  Requirements specification  Updated  Technical specification  Updated  Test plan  OK  Test reports  OK for Lmodels  Test cases  OK  Implemented software  Lmodels OK for testing  Lmodels-0.2.0_src is not fully documented

T Project Review 5 Realization of the tasks  Number of meetings was reduced due to the scheduling problems  No actual need for meetings  Variations in documentation are caused by Trapoli  Javadocs were planned to be written as part of implementation  Implementing solver proved to be more difficult then expected  PSEA took more time then expected

T Project Review 6 Working hours by person PPI1 Subtot I2I3DETotal Jouni Karppinen Hannu Kauppinen Joonas Kekoni Mitro Kuha Tuomas Luttinen Vesa Salento Kalle Valo Total Realised hours in this iterationPlan at the beginning of this iteration Latest plan (inc. realised hours and other updates) PPI1I2 Subtot I3DETotal Jouni Karppinen Hannu Kauppinen Joonas Kekoni Mitro Kuha Tuomas Luttinen Vesa Salento Kalle Valo Total RealPlanDiff Jouni Karppinen Hannu Kauppinen Joonas Kekoni Mitro Kuha 55 0 Tuomas Luttinen Vesa Salento Kalle Valo Total

T Project Review 7 Quality metrics  Unit testing coverage still limited  Source code metrics (CCCC) now available from nightly builds  Not utilized so far I1I2I3DETotal Reported 1022N/A 32 Closed 1012N/A 22 Open 010N/A Bug metrics BlockersCriticalMajorNormalMinorTrivialTotal Total open This iteration reported

T Project Review 8 Quality assessment  Systematic testing was started in iteration I2  GUI testing will begin as soon as development has frozen it  Test automation will be developed in next iteration Functional areaCoverageQualityComments GUI0  Unfinished, not tested. Server2  Average. Works already, but probably has some bugs. 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 Project Review 9 Software size in Lines of Code (LOC) PPI1I2I3DE Lmodels - Comments N/AN/A Nodes - Comments N/AN/A Model - Comments N/AN/A Processors - Comments N/AN/A Formats - Comments N/AN/A Solver - Comments N/AN/A Controller - Comments N/AN/A Web - Comments N/AN/A Server - Comments N/AN/A Client - Comments N/AN/A TOTAL N/A NCLOC N/A COMMENTS N/A

T Project Review 10 Changes to the project  Risk management was refined  New tool for GUI: Jetty

T Project Review 11 Risks  Risk management task force:  Hannu Kauppinen  Mitro Kuha  Tuomas Luttinen  Risk management practise was established  risk identification session is held at the end of each iteration  risks are analysed and classified  risks are selected for monitoring  TOP 5 risks: 1. Saved information is lost from repository (CVS) 2. Workload is underestimated and the group is unable to decide about work distribution and responsibilities 3. A communicational break leads to misinformation in documentation 4. A member of the project group is too busy with other projects but lets others believe he is still taking care of his duties in the project 5. An unexpected feature is noticed, which requires plenty of time to correct

T Project Review 12 Work practices  All planned work practices have been used  Usage of work practices have not been evaluated so far  evaluation of practices will be part of last iterations  Trapoli has worked better than in first two iterations  now only problem with one report  Pair programming, unit-testing, system level testing and heuristic evaluations were presented during this iteration

T Project Review 13 Project plan updates  Resource usage plan was updated  Using Dia as a tool was defined more precisely  Project risk management was refined as described earlier  A new tool was specified  Jetty

T Project Review 14 Requirement specification updates  Minor adjustments were made based on feedback

T Project Review 15 Technical specification  The reasons for changing from Tomcat to Jetty were added  A notice about GLPK not being thread safe and the need for our own modifications was added  Util package was removed because it doesn’t contain anything  The UML sequence diagram was modified based on feedback

T Project Review 16 Release testing of Lmodels v. 0.2  Testing was focused on Lmodels Server  Lmodels Web client and CLI client are only tools to perform testing  Testing was performed by Kalle Valo on  23 test cases  6 cases failed => 3 bugs filed  Evaluation:  There is still work to be done as even the most simple test cases cannot be successfully performed

T Project Review 17 Lmodels v. 0.2

T Project Review 18 Plan for the next iteration  Goals  Fixing found ”bugs”  Optimising the model to shorten the processing time  Updating the documentation to reflect made changes and final structure of system  Improving usability of the system  Deliverables  Project plan (updated)  Requirements specification (updated)  Technical specification (updated)  Test plan (updated)  Test report  Test cases  Implemented software  Installation manual  User’s guide

T Project Review 19 Plan for the next iteration (2)  Improving the usability of the GUI is the least important goal for the iteration  Risks / uncertainties  How many bugs will be found? Are there serious problems in the current system? Have we understood everything correctly?  Schedule  Schedule and internal deadlines will be decided at the beginning of the iteration

Thank you for your attention! For any further questions, please contact Rajoitteiset I2 Iteration