1 |
jontas |
1.1 |
%Assignment is conducted in pairs. Max. 8 pages. |
2 |
|
|
\documentclass[12pt, a4paper]{article} |
3 |
|
|
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc} |
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
\begin{document} |
6 |
|
|
\pagenumbering{roman} |
7 |
|
|
\thispagestyle{empty} |
8 |
|
|
\begin{centering} |
9 |
|
|
Assignment 1 - PAC003: Software Metrics, 5p\\ |
10 |
|
|
Jonas Petersson \& Mathias Börjeson\\ |
11 |
|
|
\emph{jopd01@student.bth.se \& tb00mbo@student.bth.se}\\ |
12 |
|
|
\end{centering} |
13 |
|
|
\tableofcontents |
14 |
|
|
\newpage |
15 |
|
|
\pagenumbering{arabic} |
16 |
|
|
\section{Internal product attributes} |
17 |
|
|
\subsection{Explain how the three aspects of the software size (Length, |
18 |
|
|
Functionality and Complexity) are supplementing each other to describe |
19 |
|
|
the notion of software size.} |
20 |
|
|
%length = is a physical size of the product |
21 |
|
|
%functionality = counts the functions supplied by the product |
22 |
|
|
%complexity = measures the complexity od underlying problem, or a solution |
23 |
|
|
%utan att ha en aning om hur notationen ser ut drar jag till med följande |
24 |
|
|
These three supplements each other adding references to |
25 |
|
|
each other. None of these is useful by itself, but by |
26 |
|
|
adding them up one can get a better perspective of the |
27 |
jontas |
1.2 |
size of the software. The length itself don't tell |
28 |
|
|
anything of how large the completed software will be, but |
29 |
|
|
together with functions and complexity one can understand |
30 |
|
|
the size of the software. Once the size of the software is |
31 |
|
|
established one may come with effort estimations, and |
32 |
|
|
based on those make a budget for what resources the |
33 |
|
|
project will need. Given these three it is possible to get |
34 |
|
|
an idea of how productive a programmer is during a time |
35 |
|
|
unit. It will not be a perfect answer, but it will be |
36 |
|
|
something that could be used to measure deviations in work |
37 |
|
|
etc. |
38 |
jontas |
1.1 |
\subsection{Give an example where code length measure can be useful and an |
39 |
|
|
example where source code length measure is not useful.} |
40 |
jontas |
1.2 |
Code length is useful if it is not going to be used by |
41 |
|
|
itself. One example of this could be if we are interested |
42 |
|
|
in how much work is done in a week. Then we could look at |
43 |
|
|
loc, and also take into account the complexity and the functions provided |
44 |
|
|
(like loc * complexity / functions or something similar). |
45 |
|
|
Then loc could be useful. |
46 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
Code length is useless if it is used by itself. For |
48 |
|
|
example the statement I am a good programmer since I |
49 |
|
|
produce more then n loc per week useless. |
50 |
jontas |
1.1 |
\subsection{Explain what are the main ideas behind Albrecht's Function Points. |
51 |
|
|
Discuss advantages and disadvantages of the measure. Motivate.} |
52 |
jontas |
1.3 |
%denna var bra http://www.spr.com/products/function.htm |
53 |
jontas |
1.2 |
The main idea behind FP's are to provide language |
54 |
|
|
independent metric that can be used no matter what |
55 |
|
|
language are used. Albrech thought it was wrong that the |
56 |
|
|
only way to tell effort and cost per effort until he begun |
57 |
|
|
was in loc. A often used metric to tell productivity was |
58 |
|
|
cost/loc, and that don't tell anything since different |
59 |
|
|
languages require different number of loc's to solve the |
60 |
|
|
same problem. This cost could be lover if the language |
61 |
|
|
requires a lot of code, but the end cost could still get |
62 |
|
|
higher if the program takes longer time to complete. |
63 |
|
|
The main idea behind FP's is to give ways to |
64 |
|
|
tell cost and productivity in a way that is language |
65 |
|
|
independent. FP's does satisfy this idea. A easier |
66 |
|
|
language will get a lower cost/FP and a greater number of |
67 |
|
|
FP's/person\&month then a more complex language. |
68 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
The great advantage with this method is that it is (almost) truly |
70 |
|
|
language independent, while a disadvantage would be that |
71 |
|
|
if this is established in the beginning of a project and |
72 |
|
|
should be used to choose a appropriate language to use, if |
73 |
|
|
the language is unfamiliar, then these metrics can't be |
74 |
|
|
computed (like FP's/person\&month). Also this way of presenting |
75 |
|
|
the result does not take into account training and |
76 |
|
|
inexperience while showing the result. Also this should |
77 |
|
|
not be used to compare different projects or groups to se |
78 |
|
|
the difference between them since this does not take |
79 |
|
|
everything into account. Also one might be tempted to |
80 |
|
|
always use the language with the highest productivity, |
81 |
|
|
this is good in most cases, but sometimes there are other |
82 |
|
|
factors to sum in, like speed, security etc. |
83 |
jontas |
1.1 |
\subsection{Describe structural measures presented by Fenton. (Control flow |
84 |
|
|
structure, Data flow structure, Data structure). Give an example |
85 |
|
|
where you explain how one could use the structural measures |
86 |
|
|
(specify which structural measure) to ensure the quality of the |
87 |
|
|
software product.} |
88 |
jontas |
1.4 |
%http://sern.ucalgary.ca/~kliewerc/SENG/623/summaries.htm#sum02 var lite halvbra... det bästa jag kunde hitta dock, + F4... |
89 |
|
|
Control flow is a diagram with nodes, connected via the |
90 |
|
|
directed connections showing the possible routs the |
91 |
|
|
program (or actually the flow of data in the program) may |
92 |
|
|
take. This could be broken down to several diagrams if it |
93 |
|
|
gets to large and complex. This diagram can be used to |
94 |
|
|
decide how many test cases is needed to test the program |
95 |
|
|
completely. |
96 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
The data flow structure could be shown in a module-call |
98 |
|
|
graph. The module-call graph shows what modules calls what |
99 |
|
|
other modules, and thereby showing more the flow of |
100 |
|
|
information within the program. This may also be used to |
101 |
|
|
show coupling and cohesion in the program. |
102 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
The data structure can be measured both locally and |
104 |
|
|
globally. Locally it is interesting how much data |
105 |
|
|
structure each data item has, and globally it is the |
106 |
|
|
amount of data for the system. For the local data |
107 |
|
|
structures very little research has been done, but for the |
108 |
|
|
global there are more. |
109 |
jontas |
1.1 |
\subsection{Draw the flow graph for the program, which |
110 |
|
|
based on the data provided by everyday measurements of the air |
111 |
|
|
temperature will calculate the maximum, minimum and the most |
112 |
|
|
commonly occurred temperature (the temperature that occurs twice |
113 |
|
|
or more) for a given month. Present program paths that has to be |
114 |
|
|
executed in order to satisfy the following testing strategies:} |
115 |
jontas |
1.5 |
See appendix a for the diagram. |
116 |
jontas |
1.1 |
\subsubsection{Statement coverage} |
117 |
jontas |
1.5 |
a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h-i-j-k-l-m-n |
118 |
jontas |
1.1 |
\subsubsection{Branch coverage} |
119 |
jontas |
1.5 |
a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h-i-j-k-l-m-n \\ |
120 |
|
|
a-b-c-b-c-d-e-g-i-j-k-m-n \\ |
121 |
|
|
a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h-i-j-k-l-m-k-m-n \\ |
122 |
jontas |
1.1 |
\subsubsection{Visit each loop} |
123 |
jontas |
1.5 |
%osäker på om detta är rätt...jag har bara antagit att man skall göra ett test så att man kör alla looparna |
124 |
|
|
a-b-c-b-c-d-e-f-g-e-f-g-h-i-g-h-i-j-k-l-m-k-m-n |
125 |
jontas |
1.1 |
\subsection{Calculate the cyclomatic complexity of your program. What does |
126 |
|
|
this figure tell you?} |
127 |
jontas |
1.5 |
%Cyclomatic complexity (CC) = E - N + p |
128 |
|
|
%where E = the number of edges of the graph |
129 |
|
|
%N = the number of nodes of the graph |
130 |
|
|
%p = the number of connected components |
131 |
|
|
%http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/cyclomatic.html |
132 |
|
|
Hopefully you mean McCabe's cyclomatic complexity\\ |
133 |
|
|
% e = no of arcs | n = no of nodes |
134 |
|
|
e-n+2 | 18 - 14 + 2 = 18 - 16 = 2 \\ %men vad säger nu detta |
135 |
|
|
This tells us the number of tests we have to do to cover |
136 |
|
|
each path in the program. It could also be used to give a |
137 |
|
|
estimation of how complex the final software will be. If |
138 |
|
|
higher then 20 it should be seen as a high risk project, |
139 |
|
|
and if higher then 50 as a very high risk project. %nuffrorna kommer från http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/cyclomatic.html |
140 |
jontas |
1.1 |
\section{OO metrics} |
141 |
|
|
\textbf{Measuring the use cases} |
142 |
jontas |
1.5 |
%vi skall använda templaten, och bifoga denna... |
143 |
jontas |
1.1 |
\subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 1 using the |
144 |
|
|
chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} |
145 |
|
|
svar |
146 |
|
|
\subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 2 using the |
147 |
|
|
chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} |
148 |
|
|
svar |
149 |
|
|
\subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following |
150 |
|
|
questions:} |
151 |
|
|
\subsubsection{Which of the two systems presented can be expected to be |
152 |
|
|
more complex and why?} |
153 |
|
|
svar |
154 |
|
|
\subsubsection{Which of the two systems can be expected to require more |
155 |
|
|
effort to be built? Why?} |
156 |
|
|
svar |
157 |
|
|
\textbf{Measuring designs} |
158 |
|
|
\subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 1 using the CK metrics suite presented on the |
159 |
|
|
lecture.} |
160 |
|
|
svar |
161 |
|
|
\subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 2 using |
162 |
|
|
the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} |
163 |
|
|
svar |
164 |
|
|
\subsection{Measure the code in the files .java from Design 1 with the CK metrics suite |
165 |
|
|
presented on the lecture.} |
166 |
|
|
svar |
167 |
|
|
\subsection{ Measure the code in the files .java |
168 |
|
|
from Design 2 with the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} |
169 |
|
|
svar |
170 |
|
|
\subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following |
171 |
|
|
questions:} |
172 |
|
|
\subsubsection{Which of the metrics could not be computed based on the class |
173 |
|
|
diagrams? Why?} |
174 |
|
|
svar |
175 |
|
|
\subsubsection{Which of the two systems is more complex? Why?} |
176 |
|
|
svar |
177 |
|
|
\subsubsection{Which method of gathering metrics - from UML designs or source |
178 |
|
|
code - is less time consuming?} |
179 |
|
|
svar |
180 |
|
|
\section{External product attributes} |
181 |
|
|
\subsection{Describe how the external product attributes differ from the |
182 |
|
|
internal ones. Describe the connection between external and |
183 |
|
|
internal product attributes.} |
184 |
jontas |
1.5 |
The internal attributes can be measured from within the |
185 |
|
|
system (like loc etc) while for the external attributes |
186 |
|
|
one must look at the finished product to se the external |
187 |
|
|
attributes. Also in general internal attributes are |
188 |
|
|
considered easier to measure (and then predict) then the |
189 |
|
|
external attributes. |
190 |
|
|
|
191 |
|
|
This is partly since the internal attributes can be |
192 |
|
|
measured more ``directly'' then the external. For |
193 |
|
|
instance loc is easy to count while usability is a lot |
194 |
|
|
harder to measure. For the internal attributes one can |
195 |
|
|
expect to be able to get absolute values while on the |
196 |
|
|
external attributes one can expect them to be less |
197 |
|
|
accurate. |
198 |
|
|
|
199 |
|
|
However several of the internal attributes (if not all) |
200 |
|
|
does affect the external attributes in a way that can |
201 |
|
|
(in most cases) be predicted. One can for instance say |
202 |
|
|
that in a specific solution if the loc is increased |
203 |
|
|
(both with comments) then one could expect to get a |
204 |
|
|
higher maintainability. Also most of the external |
205 |
|
|
attributes can be affected via the internal if the |
206 |
|
|
developers keep the external attributes in mind. |
207 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
In most cases (if not always) the customer of the product |
209 |
|
|
is more interested in the external attributes. Does this |
210 |
|
|
mean that the external attributes are of ``greater'' |
211 |
|
|
value to the team developing the product? |
212 |
|
|
|
213 |
|
|
Not always but in many cases. Also one should keep in |
214 |
|
|
mind that just because the external attributes are more |
215 |
|
|
important that the internal could be forgotten. |
216 |
|
|
%\subsection{Assume that you are working at the company that |
217 |
|
|
%mainly specializes on developing of web-based applications. |
218 |
|
|
%Your manager gives you an assignment to develop a software |
219 |
|
|
%quality model for the company. The model should show external |
220 |
|
|
%quality attributes, corresponding internal attributes and |
221 |
|
|
%metrics. Present the assumptions that you will use while |
222 |
|
|
%creating of the quality model. Provide an explanatory text |
223 |
|
|
%for your model.} %Jag tyckte inte om att läsa den texten;) |
224 |
|
|
\subsection{Assume that you are working at a company that |
225 |
|
|
mainly specializes in development of web-based applications. |
226 |
|
|
Your manager gives you an assignment to develop a software |
227 |
|
|
quality model for the company. The model should show external |
228 |
|
|
quality attributes, corresponding internal attributes and |
229 |
|
|
metrics. Present the assumptions that you will use while |
230 |
|
|
creating the quality model. Provide an explanatory text |
231 |
jontas |
1.1 |
for your model.} |
232 |
jontas |
1.5 |
%huh? - jag kollar på denna... men vill du ha den så;) |
233 |
|
|
max 8 sidor (totalt; inte på denna;) |
234 |
jontas |
1.1 |
\end{document} |