1 / 22

T-76.115 Project Review

T-76.115 Project Review. ITSUPS Implementation 2 10.2.2004. Project status (15 min) achieving the goals of the iteration project metrics Work results (20 min) presenting the iteration’s results HuVi (Pipsa Hellemaa) ViHu (Natalia Kaijalainen) demo (Niko Setälä)

kevyn
Download Presentation

T-76.115 Project Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. T-76.115 Project Review ITSUPS Implementation 210.2.2004

  2. Project status (15min) achieving the goals of the iteration project metrics Work results (20 min) presenting the iteration’s results HuVi (Pipsa Hellemaa) ViHu (Natalia Kaijalainen) demo (Niko Setälä) Used work practices (5 min) Agenda

  3. Introduction to the project • Project plan: ”The purpose of the project is to make the traffic simulation system of the laboratory of transportation engineering, HUTSIM, to collaborate with ViaSys’s city planning tool” HuVi: Positions, speeds and directions of vehicles NovaPoint Virtual Map HutSim ViHu: Borders of streets, trafficlines, traffic lights etc.

  4. Integration of Traffic Simulation with 3D-Visualization Traffic Simulation 3D-Visualization Coord-Interface HUTSIM Microsimulation System NovaPoint Virtual Map XYZ-coords XML Vehicle Data (Dynamic) Conversion Path-Interface CNF-file Conversion & Edit Land-XML Configuration Data (Static) Line-Interface I.Kosonen, HUT

  5. Status of the iteration’s goals • HuVi • Goal 1: Complete working program • Lots of implementation has been done • Not done: • HuVi: Doesn’t get enough information from Ampel • Goal 2: Simple user interface • OK • ViHu • Goal 3: Complete working program • All implementation has been done • Not done: • ViHu: Pipes were not implemented • Goal 4: Simple user interface • OK • Goal 5: Write user guide • OK

  6. Status of the iteration’s deliverables • Implementation of HUTSIM->Virtual Map • OK • Implementation of Virtual Map->HUTSIM • OK • Documents: • Updated project plan • OK • Updated requirements document • OK • Updated technical specification • OK • User guide • OK • Test report, test cases and test log (one document) • OK • Progress report • OK • Updated SEPA diaries • OK • Updated risk management document • OK • Updated resource management document • OK

  7. Realization of the tasks • Despite a few mistakes, the iteration went quite like planned • Mistakes in plan: • User guide was a draft version • User interface was forgotten

  8. Working hours by person Realized hours in this iteration Plan in the beginning of this iteration Latest plan (inc. realized hours and other updates) • Iteration went like planned • Group members have quite nicely evenly time left for the last iteration

  9. Quality metrics Defects in code • Last iteration bugs were not fixed beacuse they were results of negative tests. We thought that the most important thing now is to implement first all the necessary functionality and then if there is enough time fix the bugs.

  10. Quality assessment • HuVi (Hutsim -> Virtual Map) • Implementation not ready • Realtime output format still not defined • Unit testing done while coding • Module testing was done • ViHu (Virtual Map -> Hutsim) • Implementation ready • Unit testing done while coding • Module testing was done • Doesn’t check if the input data is valid Legend Coverage: 0 = nothing 1 = we looked at it 2 = we checked all functions 3 = it’s tested Quality: J = quality is good K = not sure L = quality is bad

  11. Software size in Lines of Code (LOC) • Any remarks on this metric? • Code is quite well commented

  12. Changes to the project • HuVi took much more time than expected • In the beginning of the iteration we decided with client that we won’t implement the pipes • Testing had to be done in different way • Code reviews • Schedule changed

  13. Risks • Materialized risks • Faulty software • Virtual Map has some bugs • Testing difficult • Code Reviews used • Greatest risks • Some problems with the testing. We believe that we can solve the problems when we have implemented more.

  14. Results of the iteration • Virtual Map -> HUTSIM (ViHu) • Natalia Kaijalainen • HUTSIM -> Virtual Map (HuVi) • Pipsa Hellemaa

  15. ViHu-component • Architecture • Same like in previous iteration • Changes for .dxf were easy to accomplish • Overview • Conversion from VirtualMap to HUTSIM is ready and works • Pipes will not be implemented in this project but researched • Faced problems during iteration • Viasys sent incorrect input files • Coordinates depends on location on the Earth • Scaling from world coordinates to HUTSIM

  16. HuVi: Overview • Receives HUTSIM simulation data via Ampel • Converts HUTSIM 2D data into 3D XML data • Supports real time visualization of the simulation (online mode) • Optionally converts data into Virtual Map ani format

  17. HuVi: State Diagram

  18. HuVi: Class Diagram

  19. HuVi: Goals for I2 • Define HuVi output format • Complete all missing functionality • Produce test program for online-mode

  20. HuVi: Problems during I2 • HUTSIM server • Display card • Firewall • Ampel • Understanding took more time than presumed • HUTSIM output • Does not include line data

  21. HuVi: Status • Input from HUTSIM • Does not include all data used by HuVi, needs to be modified • Reading of HUTSIM data • Works, not thoroughly tested • Coordinate mapping • Problems with input, line data not provided by HUTSIM • HuVi output format • Defined, accepted • XML stream/file creation • Not implemented • Online test program • Not implemented • XML-ani conversion • Works, not thoroughly tested

  22. Used work practices • Week meetings • Time reporting • At least once a week (Sunday) • Version Control • CVS, server at SoberIT • Quality Assurance • Defect Tracking • Bugzilla • Risk Management • Separate document • Resource Management • Separate document • Sepas • Meeting practices • Static Methods • Refactoring • Test Automation on System Level Testing

More Related