t-76.115 project review
DESCRIPTION
T-76.115 Project Review. Rajoitteiset I1 Iteration 3.12.2003. 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 (15 min) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
T-76.115 Project Review
RajoitteisetI1 Iteration
3.12.2003
2
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
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 (15 min) Presenting the iteration’s results and deliverables more precisely
Project plan Requirement specification Technical specification Test plan
Plans for the next iteration (5 min)
3
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Status of planned goals of the iteration
Goal 1: Designing client-server model OK
Goal 2: Implementation of linearization OK
Goal 3: Finalization of technical specification OK, although finalization is a strong word
Goal 4: Translating model from language OK
Goal 5: Designing linearisator and defining its interfaces OK
Goal 6: Designing interface for the solver OK, but interface has not been confirmed
Goal 7: Building the basis of the client POSTPONED to I2 due to changes in resource availability
4
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Status of planned deliverables of the iteration
Project plan OK
Requirements document OK
Technical specification OK
Test plan OK
5
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Realization of the tasks
Time allocated for meetings was used for understanding the underlying mathematics
Client meetings were planned as part of meetings in general
Need for rewriting the project plan was not planned, however included work for planning the next iteration
Work for designing interfaces was spent on documenting
basicly same work, different form!
Integration of new tools took time
GENERALLY SOMEWHAT OVER PLANS IN RESOURCE USAGE, but succesful completion of project not endangered.
6
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Working hours by person
PP Subtot
I1 I2 I3 DE Total
Jouni Karppinen
45 45 30 30 40 45 190
Hannu Kauppinen
40 40 25 45 40 40 190
JoonasKekoni
85 85 40 30 20 15 190
MitroKuha
35 35 30 50 45 30 190
Tuomas Luttinen
45 45 50 50 30 15 190
VesaSalento
30 30 40 50 40 30 190
KalleValo
30 30 30 60 50 20 190
Total 310 310 245 315 265 195 1330
Realized hours in this iteration Plan in the beginning of this iteration
Latest plan (inc. realized hours and other updates)
PP I1 Subtot I2 I3 DE TotalJouni Karppinen 45 35 80 30 40 40 190Hannu Kauppinen 40 30 70 45 45 30 190Joonas Kekoni 85 40 125 30 20 15 190Mitro Kuha 35 10 45 55 55 35 190Tuomas Luttinen 45 70 115 35 25 15 190Vesa Salento 30 40 70 55 40 25 190Kalle Valo 30 35 65 55 40 30 190Total 310 260 570 305 265 190 1330
Real Plan DiffJouniKarppinen
33 30 +3
HannuKauppinen
30 25 +5
JoonasKekoni
40,5 40 0
MitroKuha
9 30 -21
TuomasLuttinen
71,5 50 +21,5
VesaSalento
41 40 +1
KalleValo
34 30 +4
Total 259 245 +11
7
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Quality assessment
Systematic testing will be started in iteration I2
Currently no estimates on the quality levels of different components can be made
Number of reported bugs is low because of lack of testing
The goal of the iteration I1 was to develop a test plan
Package Coverage Quality Comments
Lmodels 0 Not started
Nodes 0 Not started
Model 0 Not started
Processor 0 Not started
Formats 0 Not started
Solver 0 Not started
Controller 0 Not started
Util 0 Not started
Server 0 Not started
Client 0 Not started
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
8
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Software size in Lines of Code (LOC)
PP I1 I2 I3 DELmodels- Comments
00
16952
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
Nodes- Comments
00
382122
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
Model- Comments
00
815
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
Processor- Comments
00
510
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
Formats- Comments
00
220
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
Solver- Comments
00
1193
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
Controller- Comments
00
948
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
Util- Comments
00
00
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
Server- Comments
00
913
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
Client- Comments
00
12810
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
N/AN/A
TOTAL 0 1 304 N/A N/A N/A
NCLOC 0 1 091 N/A N/A N/ACOMMENTS 0 213 N/A N/A N/A
9
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Changes to the project
Project responsibilities were adjusted during the iteration.
Responsibilities are divided into process and subsystem responsibilities
Process responsibilities Project management Hannu Kauppinen Requirements management Vesa Salento Documentation management Jouni Karppinen Testing Kalle Valo
Subsystem responsibilities System architecture Tuomas Luttinen Model Jouni Kekoni Server-Client structure Vesa Salento User interface Mitro Kuha
10
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Risks
Risk management has been performed on ad-hoc basis
Trapoli risk was materialized in previous iteration all hours were written down in addition to maintaining information in Trapoli
No new risks were identified
11
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Work practices
All planned work practices have been used
Usage of work practices have not been evaluated so far
Trapoli has worked better than in first iteration however, there have still been some breaks in the system which have caused
additional work during the iteration
Documentation and meeting practices and the usage of design patterns were presented during iteration
Pair programming has been used
Test practices and heuristic evaluation will be presented in next iteration
No changes in work practices planned so far
12
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Project plan updates
Project organization was redefined as described earlier
Rights to project outcome were decided with customer classified agreement will be signed later
Task-level planning for remaining iterations was included
Some new tools were specified JUnit HttpUnit Checkstyle PMD Findbugs
13
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Requirement specification updates
Some requirements were specified more closely after feedback from mentor and customer
Some prioritizations were redefined in co-operation with the customer
14
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Technical specification
General functionality
Server-client structure
15
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Technical specification (2)
Using Lmodels with CLI Client
16
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Technical specification (3)
Lmodels packages
17
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Test plan
Testing is focused on Lmodels Server Lmodels Web client and CLI client are only tools to perform testing
Test approach Unit testing Automated system testing Release testing Load testing Delivery acceptance testing
Test arrangements Test cases Test reporting Error reports
18
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Plan for the next iteration
Goals Optimizing the model to shorten the
processing time Implementation of the linearizator Implementation of the wrapper for the
solver Building the graphical user interface. Implementing the client-server
structure
Deliverables Project plan (updated) Requirements specification (updated) Technical specification (updated) Test plan (updated) Test report Test cases Implemented software
19
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Plan for the next iteration (2)
Optimizing the model is the least important goal for the iteration
Risks / uncertainties Exact impact of holidays, how do different people use the holidays
Schedule schedule and internal deadlines will be decided at the beginning of the
iteration
Thank you for your attention!
For any further questions, please [email protected]
RajoitteisetI1 Iteration
3.12.2003