Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] PI.SP 3.1 Confirm Readiness of Product Components for Integration

Expand Messages
  • fedemil13
    Thanks Henry for your explanation. I ask you one more question. Should we run unit tests for every configuration unit? Is it possible to implement actions
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 1 7:36 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Henry for your explanation.

      I ask you one more question.

      Should we run unit tests for every configuration unit?
      Is it possible to implement actions other than unit testing to comply with this best practice?

      I think that the Static Code Analysis in VS Team System checks the interfaces betwen components.

      In the peer reviews of code we check the interfaces against their descriptions documented in design specifications.

      Thanks in advance.

      Best Regards,

      --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, Henry Schneider | PPQC <henry@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Federico,
      > The purpose of PI SP 3.1 is to ensure that all of the components that you
      > will be assembling are ready for assembly. For purely a software project,
      > this practice is pretty easy and straightforward. At a minimum, you want to
      > be certain that every module has been properly checked into your CM system,
      > that every configuration unit has been unit tested, and that the external
      > and internal interfaces have been examined to verify that they comply with
      > the documented interface descriptions. It sounds like you might have most
      > of these activities covered by MS Team System and your peer reviews. What I
      > don¹t see in your description is any activity associated with checking the
      > interfaces against their descriptions.
      > When you are integrating hardware and software, or have a large and complex
      > software project with many different systems, this practice becomes more
      > complicated.
      > Hope this short explanation helps.
      > Best Regards,
      > Henry Schneider
      >
      >
      > On 6/29/10 9:21 AM, "fedemil13" <fedemil13@...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Hello all,
      > >
      > > I need help with this practice.
      > >
      > > This is the situation:
      > > In our organization we have implemented MS Team System.
      > > This tool allow to analize the code from different perspectives.
      > > We have implemented peer reviews. The reviews of code allow to verify whether
      > > it comply with de design especification.
      > > We have also implemented CM audits to check the identification of every
      > > configuration item.
      > >
      > > I´m not certain we are fully aligned with this practice.
      > >
      > > Thanks in advance.
      > >
      > > Regards,
      > >
      > > Federico Carlos Viñuelas
      > > Systems Engineer
      > > Quality Team
      > > Córdoba - Argentina
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > Henry Schneider SEI-Certified
      > SCAMPI Lead Appraiser
      > President/Senior Principal Consultant SEI-Certified High Maturity
      > Lead Appraiser
      > Work: 281-218-6682 SEI-Certified Intro
      > to CMMI Instructor
      > Mobile: 832-628-2486
      > Email: henry@...
      > Process and Product Quality Consulting http://www.ppqc.net
      > PPQC Blog
      > http://PPQC.blogspot.com
      >
      > Process and Product Quality Consulting Facilitating your process
      > journey ...
      >
    • jctorres.geo
      Dear Federico I´d like to know how you have implemented (or plan to implement) PI SP 2.1 and 2.2. Our developers use also MS Team System and are expect to
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 2 4:05 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Federico

        I´d like to know how you have implemented (or plan to implement) PI SP 2.1 and 2.2. Our developers use also MS Team System and are expect to implement both practices using automated features that this tool provide.

        I´m sceptic of how this tool can actually manage interfaces definitions. For what I have seen so far. It provides searching capabilities and some type of verification aids, but still there seem to be some "extra" magament activities in order to ensure control.

        Regards

        Juan Carlos

        --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "fedemil13" <fedemil13@...> wrote:
        >
        > Thanks Henry for your explanation.
        >
        > I ask you one more question.
        >
        > Should we run unit tests for every configuration unit?
        > Is it possible to implement actions other than unit testing to comply with this best practice?
        >
        > I think that the Static Code Analysis in VS Team System checks the interfaces betwen components.
        >
        > In the peer reviews of code we check the interfaces against their descriptions documented in design specifications.
        >
        > Thanks in advance.
        >
        > Best Regards,
        >
        > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, Henry Schneider | PPQC <henry@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Dear Federico,
        > > The purpose of PI SP 3.1 is to ensure that all of the components that you
        > > will be assembling are ready for assembly. For purely a software project,
        > > this practice is pretty easy and straightforward. At a minimum, you want to
        > > be certain that every module has been properly checked into your CM system,
        > > that every configuration unit has been unit tested, and that the external
        > > and internal interfaces have been examined to verify that they comply with
        > > the documented interface descriptions. It sounds like you might have most
        > > of these activities covered by MS Team System and your peer reviews. What I
        > > don¹t see in your description is any activity associated with checking the
        > > interfaces against their descriptions.
        > > When you are integrating hardware and software, or have a large and complex
        > > software project with many different systems, this practice becomes more
        > > complicated.
        > > Hope this short explanation helps.
        > > Best Regards,
        > > Henry Schneider
        > >
        > >
        > > On 6/29/10 9:21 AM, "fedemil13" <fedemil13@> wrote:
        > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Hello all,
        > > >
        > > > I need help with this practice.
        > > >
        > > > This is the situation:
        > > > In our organization we have implemented MS Team System.
        > > > This tool allow to analize the code from different perspectives.
        > > > We have implemented peer reviews. The reviews of code allow to verify whether
        > > > it comply with de design especification.
        > > > We have also implemented CM audits to check the identification of every
        > > > configuration item.
        > > >
        > > > I´m not certain we are fully aligned with this practice.
        > > >
        > > > Thanks in advance.
        > > >
        > > > Regards,
        > > >
        > > > Federico Carlos Viñuelas
        > > > Systems Engineer
        > > > Quality Team
        > > > Córdoba - Argentina
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Henry Schneider SEI-Certified
        > > SCAMPI Lead Appraiser
        > > President/Senior Principal Consultant SEI-Certified High Maturity
        > > Lead Appraiser
        > > Work: 281-218-6682 SEI-Certified Intro
        > > to CMMI Instructor
        > > Mobile: 832-628-2486
        > > Email: henry@
        > > Process and Product Quality Consulting http://www.ppqc.net
        > > PPQC Blog
        > > http://PPQC.blogspot.com
        > >
        > > Process and Product Quality Consulting Facilitating your process
        > > journey ...
        > >
        >
      • EDWARD F WELLER III
        Fredrico Should we run Unit tests for every configuration unit? As they say, that depends. Dynamic testing will find defects that static testing (reviews)
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 2 4:24 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Fredrico
           
          "Should we run Unit tests for every configuration unit?"
           
          As they say, that depends. Dynamic testing will find defects that static testing (reviews) cannot typically find. Looking the distribution of defects across your testing activities compared to review effectiveness will tell you whether or not you need to test and where to test. Given Unit test is usually cheaper to do than other testing activities, it is usually a good thing to do, but again you need to see how well it works, and how necessary it is in your environment. I would suggest if you are worried about VER and PI that you should have enough data to make this determination.
           
          Note the CMMI does NOT require that you do different levels of testing. VER SP 1.1 says you select the workproducts, and PI helps you determine the test environments (levels)
           
          IF peer reviews of requirements, design, and code (not just code) are highly effective, then is is possible "skipping" unit test is economically viable. See my 1993 IEEE Software article "Lessons from Three Years of Inspection Data" available from IEEE. In the article I have a "case study" (experience report) describing just this scenario - we had sufficient confidence in our inspections that we did "big bang" integration of 125 OS Kernel modules. End result that thru the end of system test 95%+ (I think is was near 97%) of our defects were found via inspection. Given that Unit test in a mainframe environment was very expensive, this was a huge win for us.
           
          Note all out UT test cases were run in the IT environment, so we skipped the activity of UT, but still ran all the test cases. People referencing this article often overlook this point.
           
          So the real answer to you r question does not lie in the model, but in your data.
           
          Hope this helps

          Ed
        • Henry Schneider | PPQC
          Dear Frederico, You are actually focusing on the wrong topic. Instead you should be seeking answers to these types of questions. 1. What do your business
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 2 5:21 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] PI.SP 3.1 Confirm Readiness of Product Components for Integration Dear Frederico,
            You are actually focusing on the wrong topic.  Instead you should be seeking answers to these types of questions.
            1. What do your business goals and objectives tell you about the required quality level of products?  
            2. What is the reason for performing unit tests?  Or what are you trying to achieve by unit testing the code?
            3. Do your customer requirements and your business goals and objectives require a quality level that demands that you perform unit tests before creating a product build?  
            4. What are your requirements for each configuration item before creating a build?  
            Answers to these questions will provide the answers to your questions.
            Basically, your configuration audits are there in order for you to determine if all of the configuration items are ready to be assembled.  Perhaps the Static Code Analysis in VS Team System is satisfactory, perhaps it is not.  That is for you to decide based on the quality requirements for your product.
            Hope this explanation helps, but there is no clear answer to your question without being able to spend some time with you and your organization to perform an in-depth analysis of your processes and procedures.
            Best Regards,
            Henry Schneider


            On 7/1/10 9:36 AM, "fedemil13" <fedemil13@...> wrote:


             
             
               

            Thanks Henry for your explanation.

            I ask you one more question.

            Should we run unit tests for every configuration unit?
            Is it possible to implement actions other than unit testing to comply with this best practice?

            I think that the Static Code Analysis in VS Team System checks the interfaces betwen components.

            In the peer reviews of code we check the interfaces against their descriptions documented in design specifications.

            Thanks in advance.

            Best Regards,

            --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cmmi_process_improvement%40yahoogroups.com> , Henry Schneider | PPQC <henry@...> wrote:
            >
            > Dear Federico,
            > The purpose of PI SP 3.1 is to ensure that all of the components that you
            > will be assembling are ready for assembly.  For purely a software project,
            > this practice is pretty easy and straightforward.  At a minimum, you want to
            > be certain that every module has been properly checked into your CM system,
            > that every configuration unit has been unit tested, and that the external
            > and internal interfaces have been examined to verify that they comply with
            > the documented interface descriptions.  It sounds like you might have most
            > of these activities covered by MS Team System and your peer reviews.  What I
            > don’t see in your description is any activity associated with checking the
            > interfaces against their descriptions.
            > When you are integrating hardware and software, or have a large and complex
            > software project with many different systems, this practice becomes more
            > complicated.
            > Hope this short explanation helps.
            > Best Regards,
            > Henry Schneider
            >
            >
            > On 6/29/10 9:21 AM, "fedemil13" <fedemil13@...> wrote:
            >
            > >  
            > >  
            > >  
            > >    
            > >
            > > Hello all,
            > >
            > > I need help with this practice.
            > >
            > > This is the situation:
            > > In our organization we have implemented MS Team System.
            > > This tool allow to analize the code from different perspectives.
            > > We have implemented peer reviews. The reviews of code allow to verify whether
            > > it comply with de design especification.
            > > We have also implemented CM audits to check the identification of every
            > > configuration item.
            > >  
            > > I´m not certain we are fully aligned with this practice.
            > >
            > > Thanks in advance.
            > >
            > > Regards,
            > >
            > > Federico Carlos Viñuelas
            > > Systems Engineer
            > > Quality Team
            > > Córdoba - Argentina
            > >
            > >  
            > >    
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > Henry Schneider                                             SEI-Certified
            > SCAMPI Lead Appraiser
            > President/Senior Principal Consultant        SEI-Certified High Maturity
            > Lead Appraiser  
            > Work:  281-218-6682                                     SEI-Certified Intro
            > to CMMI Instructor
            > Mobile:  832-628-2486
            > Email:  henry@...
            > Process and Product Quality Consulting    http://www.ppqc.net
            > PPQC Blog          
            > http://PPQC.blogspot.com
            >
            > Process and Product Quality Consulting      Facilitating your process
            > journey ...
            >

             
               




            Henry Schneider                                             SEI-Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser
            President/Senior Principal Consultant        SEI-Certified High Maturity Lead Appraiser  
            Work:  281-218-6682                                     SEI-Certified Intro to CMMI Instructor
            Mobile:  832-628-2486
            Email:  henry@...
            Process and Product Quality Consulting    http://www.ppqc.net
            PPQC Blog                                                       http://PPQC.blogspot.com

            Process and Product Quality Consulting      Facilitating your process journey ...






          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.