112 |
commonly occurred temperature (the temperature that occurs twice |
commonly occurred temperature (the temperature that occurs twice |
113 |
or more) for a given month. Present program paths that has to be |
or more) for a given month. Present program paths that has to be |
114 |
executed in order to satisfy the following testing strategies:} |
executed in order to satisfy the following testing strategies:} |
115 |
|
See appendix a for the diagram. |
116 |
\subsubsection{Statement coverage} |
\subsubsection{Statement coverage} |
117 |
svar |
a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h-i-j-k-l-m-n |
118 |
\subsubsection{Branch coverage} |
\subsubsection{Branch coverage} |
119 |
svar |
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 |
\subsubsection{Visit each loop} |
\subsubsection{Visit each loop} |
123 |
svar |
%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 |
\subsection{Calculate the cyclomatic complexity of your program. What does |
\subsection{Calculate the cyclomatic complexity of your program. What does |
126 |
this figure tell you?} |
this figure tell you?} |
127 |
svar |
%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 |
\section{OO metrics} |
\section{OO metrics} |
141 |
\textbf{Measuring the use cases} |
\textbf{Measuring the use cases} |
142 |
|
%vi skall använda templaten, och bifoga denna... |
143 |
\subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 1 using the |
\subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 1 using the |
144 |
chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} |
chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} |
145 |
svar |
See appendix b. |
146 |
\subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 2 using the |
\subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 2 using the |
147 |
chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} |
chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture} |
148 |
svar |
See appendix c. |
149 |
\subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following |
\subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following |
150 |
questions:} |
questions:} |
151 |
\subsubsection{Which of the two systems presented can be expected to be |
\begin{itemize} |
152 |
more complex and why?} |
\item Which of the two systems presented can be expected to be |
153 |
svar |
more complex and why? |
154 |
\subsubsection{Which of the two systems can be expected to require more |
\item Which of the two systems can be expected to require more |
155 |
effort to be built? Why?} |
effort to be built? Why? |
156 |
svar |
\end{itemize} |
157 |
\textbf{Measuring designs} |
We expect design 2 to become more complex, both since |
158 |
|
it has more use cases, but also since it has higher |
159 |
|
values (in general) on the metrics suit. |
160 |
|
|
161 |
|
We expect design 2 to require more effort to build |
162 |
|
since it has more use cases and more actions (more |
163 |
|
functionality). Also since we feel that design 2 has a |
164 |
|
higher complexity. Also most of the values that we can |
165 |
|
get out from our metrics suit are greater, both in |
166 |
|
total and if we count them per use case. |
167 |
|
|
168 |
|
We feel that it is hard to make good (accurate) |
169 |
|
estimations based on this suit only and we also feel |
170 |
|
that while good estimations on use case level can be |
171 |
|
made using this suit, it is not a good thing to try to |
172 |
|
make estimations of the system as a whole only based |
173 |
|
on this information. |
174 |
|
\\ \\ \textbf{Measuring designs} |
175 |
\subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 1 using the CK metrics suite presented on the |
\subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 1 using the CK metrics suite presented on the |
176 |
lecture.} |
lecture.} |
177 |
svar |
See appendix b. |
178 |
\subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 2 using |
\subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 2 using |
179 |
the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} |
the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} |
180 |
svar |
See appendix c. |
181 |
\subsection{Measure the code in the files .java from Design 1 with the CK metrics suite |
\subsection{Measure the code in the files .java from Design 1 with the CK metrics suite |
182 |
presented on the lecture.} |
presented on the lecture.} |
183 |
svar |
See appendix b. |
184 |
\subsection{ Measure the code in the files .java |
\subsection{ Measure the code in the files .java |
185 |
from Design 2 with the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} |
from Design 2 with the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.} |
186 |
svar |
See appendix c. |
187 |
\subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following |
\subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following |
188 |
questions:} |
questions:} |
189 |
\subsubsection{Which of the metrics could not be computed based on the class |
\begin{itemize} |
190 |
diagrams? Why?} |
\item Which of the metrics could not be computed based on the class |
191 |
svar |
diagrams? Why? |
192 |
\subsubsection{Which of the two systems is more complex? Why?} |
\item Which of the two systems is more complex? Why? |
193 |
svar |
\end{itemize} |
194 |
|
Svar |
195 |
\subsubsection{Which method of gathering metrics - from UML designs or source |
\subsubsection{Which method of gathering metrics - from UML designs or source |
196 |
code - is less time consuming?} |
code - is less time consuming?} |
197 |
svar |
svar |
199 |
\subsection{Describe how the external product attributes differ from the |
\subsection{Describe how the external product attributes differ from the |
200 |
internal ones. Describe the connection between external and |
internal ones. Describe the connection between external and |
201 |
internal product attributes.} |
internal product attributes.} |
202 |
svar |
The internal attributes can be measured from within the |
203 |
\subsection{Assume that you are |
system (like loc etc) while for the external attributes |
204 |
working at the company that mainly specializes on developing of |
one must look at the finished product to se the external |
205 |
web-based applications. Your manager gives you an assignment to |
attributes. Also in general internal attributes are |
206 |
develop a software quality model for the company. The model should |
considered easier to measure (and then predict) then the |
207 |
show external quality attributes, corresponding internal |
external attributes. |
208 |
attributes and metrics. Present the assumptions that you will use |
|
209 |
while creating of the quality model. Provide an explanatory text |
This is partly since the internal attributes can be |
210 |
|
measured more ``directly'' then the external. For |
211 |
|
instance loc is easy to count while usability is a lot |
212 |
|
harder to measure. For the internal attributes one can |
213 |
|
expect to be able to get absolute values while on the |
214 |
|
external attributes one can expect them to be less |
215 |
|
accurate. |
216 |
|
|
217 |
|
However several of the internal attributes (if not all) |
218 |
|
does affect the external attributes in a way that can |
219 |
|
(in most cases) be predicted. One can for instance say |
220 |
|
that in a specific solution if the loc is increased |
221 |
|
(both with comments) then one could expect to get a |
222 |
|
higher maintainability. Also most of the external |
223 |
|
attributes can be affected via the internal if the |
224 |
|
developers keep the external attributes in mind. |
225 |
|
|
226 |
|
In most cases (if not always) the customer of the product |
227 |
|
is more interested in the external attributes. Does this |
228 |
|
mean that the external attributes are of ``greater'' |
229 |
|
value to the team developing the product? |
230 |
|
|
231 |
|
Not always but in many cases. Also one should keep in |
232 |
|
mind that just because the external attributes are more |
233 |
|
important that the internal could be forgotten. |
234 |
|
%\subsection{Assume that you are working at the company that |
235 |
|
%mainly specializes on developing of web-based applications. |
236 |
|
%Your manager gives you an assignment to develop a software |
237 |
|
%quality model for the company. The model should show external |
238 |
|
%quality attributes, corresponding internal attributes and |
239 |
|
%metrics. Present the assumptions that you will use while |
240 |
|
%creating of the quality model. Provide an explanatory text |
241 |
|
%for your model.} %Jag tyckte inte om att läsa den texten;) |
242 |
|
\subsection{Assume that you are working at a company that |
243 |
|
mainly specializes in development of web-based applications. |
244 |
|
Your manager gives you an assignment to develop a software |
245 |
|
quality model for the company. The model should show external |
246 |
|
quality attributes, corresponding internal attributes and |
247 |
|
metrics. Present the assumptions that you will use while |
248 |
|
creating the quality model. Provide an explanatory text |
249 |
for your model.} |
for your model.} |
250 |
max 8 sidor |
Assumptions: We are using an iterative development |
251 |
|
process, we are using function points to measure progress, |
252 |
|
we are using a good configuration management tool, we are |
253 |
|
identifying risks before starting a project, we are, but |
254 |
|
not always using uml for our projects. |
255 |
|
|
256 |
|
Since we are working on web-based applications we also |
257 |
|
assumed that we are selling those to a customer. This made |
258 |
|
us make a value based quality view. This made us decide |
259 |
|
that usability, lernability, reusability, maintainability, reliability, |
260 |
|
is the most important external attributes. The internal |
261 |
|
attributes are not considered as important, other than to |
262 |
|
help up the external. Customer satisfaction does supersede |
263 |
|
this thou. The external attributes has the following |
264 |
|
impact on customer satisfaction: \\ |
265 |
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} |
266 |
|
\hline |
267 |
|
Attribute & Importance & Role \\ \hline |
268 |
|
Usability & High & |
269 |
|
Decides if the customer fells that he may use\\ |
270 |
|
& & the product or not. The more usable the product\\ |
271 |
|
& & becomes, the higher value it gets (and thereby\\ |
272 |
|
& & higher quality). \\ \hline |
273 |
|
%hmmm, borde finnas nått bättre sätt... |
274 |
|
Learnability & High & |
275 |
|
The quicker the end-user can learn to use the \\ |
276 |
|
& & program, the quicker he feels the value of the\\ |
277 |
|
& & program and does need it. This makes the \\ |
278 |
|
& & customer feels a gain from buying our product \\ \hline |
279 |
|
Reusability & Medium & |
280 |
|
This is only important if using agreements like\\ |
281 |
|
& & ``avtal 90'' or similar that gives us the freedom\\ |
282 |
|
& & of the developed artifacts, and may use them in\\ |
283 |
|
& & projects to come. If the customer has no demands\\ |
284 |
|
& & on this, and will own the artifacts then it is \\ |
285 |
|
& & not taken into consideration.\\ \hline |
286 |
|
Maintainability & Medium & |
287 |
|
This is only important if we are using the \\ |
288 |
|
& to low & |
289 |
|
reusability from above. And only to support that\\ |
290 |
|
& & purpose. Otherwise this would not have been a \\ |
291 |
|
& & issue at all. \\ \hline |
292 |
|
Reliability & High & |
293 |
|
This is important since a reliable program is \\ |
294 |
|
& & seen as having a higher value. \\ \hline |
295 |
|
\end{tabular} \\ \\ |
296 |
|
Internal attributes are only important in order to gain |
297 |
|
the external attributes. |
298 |
\end{document} |
\end{document} |