Docstoc

Client Meeting 36

Document Sample
Client Meeting 36 Powered By Docstoc
					Client Meeting 36
Goals:           Team Status, Transition Status
Required         Status updates from Team
Preparation:
When:           Sept 24th, 11:30 – 12:30pm              Where:         Wean 4220
Attendees:      FACEO5 Team
Scribe:         Laura                                   Facilitator:   Nina


Agenda
#   Time         Item                 Facilitator      Desired Outcome
1   1 minute     Review Agenda        Nina              Agenda is complete and meeting goals
                                                         are understood.
2   10           Task status          Nina/Aparup       Client is bought up to speed.
    minutes      related to the
                 workflow
                 execution, data
                 services testing,
                 data uploader
3   10           Transition items     Nina              Client is bought up to speed and next
    minutes      status on how pair                      steps are discussed.
                 programming is
                 going so far and
                 next steps
4   10           Changes within       Nina/Team         Client is bought up to speed.
    minutes      the team
                 FACEO5
                 organization and
                 its possible
                 impacts
5                Wrap-Up              Nina              New tasks or action items are made
                                                         clear to attendees.
                                                        Meeting minutes are updated on
                                                         Sharepoint.

Action Items
       Dr Schmerl – Send the portal data uploader code to Aparup
       Dr Schmerl – Send some workflow examples other than what we are using to do more
        data services testing.
       Team (Nina) - Send a list of pair programming tasks for Dr. Schmerl (back-end), Vishal
        (back-end), Perla (any easy-bugs to get familiar with code base) and to the corresponding
        transition team members
       Team (Nina) - Send a list of “individual” bug fix tasks to Paulo and Jessica with Dr.
        Schmerl in loop
      Team (Nina) - Send a task list to Dr. Schmerl on the one’s that Hector is working on so
       they are aware what bugs are being worked up on there.
      Team (Nina) – Reschedule the Client meeting from October 8th. Make sure both Dr.
       Garlan and Dr. Schmerl times match for client meeting.
      Team (Nina) – Schedule client meeting next week and make sure Dr. Garlan is there too.
      Team – next iteration (next week) fix the “description” showing up in the service
       information bug
      Team - next iteration (next week) fix the packaging wire bug to be curvy and different
       color.
      Team - Schedule a demo during next client meeting to show the GUI changes for Dr.
       Garlan’s and Schmerl’s feedback (syntactic highlights fix, packaging wire fix,
       descriptions of services fix, data services execution with simple use-case)
      Team – Carve out some R&D time for workflow debugging with Dr. Schmerl which
       means team may not address some agreed upon bug fixes as this is higher priority. Make
       sure clients are aware of what might get pushed and its not conflicting in priorities.

Minutes
Task Statuses
 Transition items
   o Nina was working with Jessica on front-end bugs. They’ve fixed four (out of six) and did
       some code walkthrough. She seems comfortable with GUI stuff. She’s giving the last
       two a shot on her own and will contact Nina as needed. We’re not sure if we need to
       keep doing pair programming. We think we can start giving her more difficult GUI
       items.
   o Mai and Paulo fixed a front-end bug and he was comfortable with that. There was
       another bug on the backend but his environment wasn’t setup for workflow execution.
       Mai is waiting to hear from him on when it will be fixed. He seemed comfortable with
       both front- and back-end. We think we can start giving him independent tasks.
   o Aparup and Vishal worked together. Vishal is interested in doing an analysis plugin
       (security analysis). Is there some way to target the bugs so that it better aligns with what
       he’s interested in doing? We don’t have any bugs related to the analysis framework. Can
       he do something with the domain model? The analysis framework doesn’t use the
       domain model, it’s separate. Vishal did want to do some syntactic checking, though, and
       that does use the domain model.
        Does the analysis framework have access to the Acme description of the workflow?
           No, not right now.
        Is the conversion to Acme exposed as a web service? No because it goes from our
           domain model (that the analysis framework doesn’t see) to the intermediate language.
           It’s possible to expose that conversion by using the workflow name which is stored in
           the database, which can be loaded and then converted to domain model and then
           converted to Acme.
        Dr. Schmerl is reluctant to give a task to expose the conversion to Vishal as the first
           big thing to do with our code base. Instead we’ll give him some more difficult bugs
           on the back-end to get him more familiar with the codebase and maybe some
   o What are the plans to test Acme for workflow execution? Right now Dr. Schmerl isn’t
     sure who’s going to write it, but Dr. Garlan does want to do that. BPEL conversion is a
     big task.
   o Perla is working with Aparup. Her development environment is setup but she wants to
     read about the tool more and play with it more before starting coding. She also seems to
     have time pressures. We’re not really sure what her comfort level is with the code base.
     So we think she should still be paired and we’ll work on some easy bugs with her, and we
     should prod her periodically to make sure she’s making progress. She’s currently looking
     at Dr. Garlan’s projects and may or may not end up working with us. Her research
     background is in transformations of architectures. In the long run she might be interested
     in the automatic data transformation feature that was out of our project scope.
   o Laura and Dr. Schmerl were working together. Out of five bugs we’ve fixed three and
     the other two are remaining for today (related to IE). He’s fairly comfortable with the
     front-end, and next iteration we should keep pairing and give him some back-end bugs to
     work on.
   o We don’t think we need another big 10-person meeting yet. We’ll keep doing pair
     programming (the pairs may switch).

FACEO5 Team Changes
 Now Hector is working separately from the team and is being monitored closely by the
  mentors. We’ve carved out some tasks for him to work on, mostly isolated from the rest of
  the code.
 If he needs information he may need to talk to the team but he won’t be attending any client
  meetings.
 The changes should be transparent to the clients, it shouldn’t impact them.

Mantis Bugs Status
 We’ve finished testing the data services by using the Darfur project. It works fine for
  executing the workflow. We don’t need anything from that side.
 The data uploader is in progress. He’s working on the creation of data services using the
  SORASCS API.
 In the portal beta, there’s code in place to do data uploading but it might not be able to work
  with our tool because of get/post issues. We’re working with DWR because they have
  capabilities to do this. Dr. Schmerl is using YUI connect. Dr. Schmerl should send this code
  to Aparup because it hasn’t been checked in yet.
 The propagation of the correct workflow ID seems to be working from the SORASCS side, so
  we just need to fix our side to properly show the progress.
 Execution errors being propagated to the front-end (the workflow isn’t terminal). Dr. Schmerl
  was looking at it today and thinks he has some ideas on how to fix it from the BPEL code.
  After this is working we still need to work on the front-end to show the error properly.

Miscellaneous
 Now that data services are working, Dr. Schmerl should provide us with some example
  workflows that are more complex and use different services. We will use these workflows for
  further testing.
 Dr. Garlan is keen on doing the execution debugging etc. He wants work to progress on the
  SORASCS side, which may not impact us. Dr. Schmerl’s been looking into the ODE
  management interface (?) and has sent Aparup email about it. Aparup will take a look at it.
  Does he want a task on the team’s side? It’s mostly Dr. Schmerl’s research right now but we
  may want to allocate some R&D time for Aparup. We’ll probably have to take out some
  other tasks for Aparup, but we can do that if it’s a higher priority.
 Dr. Garlan also doesn’t like the packaging wire – he wants dashed, a different color, and it to
  be curved instead of straight. The color and curve are like a five second change but the dash
  is difficult. Dr. Schmerl thinks we should fix the color and curve and then tell Dr. Garlan that
  the dash isn’t supported in WireIt and would take significantly more effort.
 There was another GUI thing that was bothering Dr. Garlan but Dr. Schmerl can’t remember
  what it was. It may have been the red highlighting for syntactic errors, which has been fixed
  last iteration.
 What’s the status of showing the description of a service in the meta-info? The HTML
  parsing utility should be able to display it but we don’t think we’re showing it. We need to
  check this.
 The team wants to change the weekly client meeting timeslot because there’s an MSE lecture
  series that is going to start.
 Dr. Schmerl is concerned that we haven’t met with Dr. Garlan this semester. We should try to
  meet with him soon, maybe next week.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:2/27/2012
language:
pages:4