Presentation Mats Berglund

Transcription

Tool Integration
in the age of agile
Mats Berglund
Enterprise Architect








Age of Agile
Challenge
Vision
Landscape
Architecture
Strategies
Use Case
Conclusion
Mats Berglund | Enterprise Architect | 2013-10-23 | Page 2
Age of Agile
Tool Integration in the age of Agile
Agile Manifesto
dark ages of Tool integration
ISO-9001 § 7.5.3
“The organization shall identify the product status with respect to monitoring and measurement requirements throughout product realization”
Traditional
Agile Transformation
Need
Plan
Fault
Design
Code
Build
Test
Release
Product
Mgmt
Req mgmt
Fault
Handling
Modeling
IDE
Build
Test Mgmt
Productify
Debug
SCM
Test Auto
Product
repository
Project
Product Backlog
Product mgmt & High level planning
Team tasks
Agile
Team Backlog
Modeling
IDE
Debug
Continuous Delivery
Build
SCM
Product repository
Deploy
Test Auto
Shipment
Provisioning
The missing piece
Customer
Team
Product
Program / Project
Challenge
Tool integration in the age of Agile
Size XXL – By Ericsson
“Lean & Agile story” provides a number of
lessons and insights that are becoming increasingly clear – especially
when we talk about scale. Here we are referring to huge systems
The company’s
with millions of lines of custom code that have to work reliably for 5 to 10 years
and sometimes even longer than that.
Softhouse®: Size XXL – Lean and Agile projects within Ericsson
The next Big thing – ICT DevOPS
Users
ICT
citizen
Open
B2B
Telco Cloud
Global ICT Centers
telco grade 99.999%
Deploy
Operate
Customers
Ericsson
Develop
Vision
Tool integration in the age of Agile
Federated ALMs
› ALM tools from various vendors, open-source and in-house solutions
cooperates and are easily interchangeable using standardized API’s
Tuleap
Integration API’s
Jenkins
EriCOLL
Clear Case
Titan
Tools Framework
System & Product
Team & Program
Architecture
Backlog
Use Cases
Anatomy
Dashboard
Defects
Resources
Modeling
Wiki
Release
Design & Implementation
Integration & Verification
IDE
Pass or Fail
Code generation
Builds
Reviews
CAD
?
Test Automation
Simulation
SQA
Landscape
Team
Program
Enterprise
Landscape “Dart”
User
 Enterprise collaboration
 Program/Project collaboration
 Team collaboration
Enterprise
Information Objects
Roll-up
Wiki
In
Context
Doc
Gen
Backlog
Demand
Timeline
Team
Dashboard
BI
Project
Anatomy
Program
On-line
Roadmap
Epic
DRS
Story
CSR
Defect
MRS
Task
Widget
TR
Note: Not complete. A snapshot of vocabularies used at Ericsson.
Chat
Code
Gen
Bug
System
Descr.
System
Anatomy
Model
User
Corr.
Edit
CBA
IDE
Code
SQA
SCM
Test
Case
Archive
SCM
Compile
CPI
Gate
Way
Reuse
Automate
PDM
Load
Build
Deploy
 Information objects
Lab
Orchestrate
Equipment
Compute
Farm
Tools Map
Outlook
MS Project
Lync
Replir
Mail man
EPP
Jabber
PAIPE
Share Point
ScrumWorks
Media Wiki
RTC
Mingle
Micro Strat
Confluence
Focal Point
GreenHopper
Insight
Accept360
SAP BW
MARS
Insight
RTC
Birt
Team
Birt
TeamForge
RRC
Tuleap
Doors
HP ALM
Jira
Redmine
MHWeb
Hansoft
SMS
CQ
Rally
MHWeb
Jira
FusionForge
TFS
RSA
Mylyn
Rhapsody
Power Des.
Developer
Bugzilla
Eclipse
Coverity
CCA
Papyrus
Net Beans
JUnit
Visual Studio
Clear Case
PRIM/GASK
RAM
CDT
GCC
Git / Gerrit
SW Gateway
Nexus
Subversion
EriDoc
JCAT
RQM
Maven
ALEX
Titan
HP QC
Make
 Central tools (IT org support)
CPIX
TPT2
TASS
LSF
TitanSim
Jenkins
SEA
Accelerator
MGWsim
 Local tools
SWDI
Cruise Ctrl
A
Team
Program
Enterprise
Integration types
C
User
B
A. Same purpose integration
E.g. Epic  Epic
B. Inter sub-domain integration
E.g. Requirement  Test Case
C. Intra sub-domain integration
E.g. Customer defect  Design bug
Architectures
What is a Framework?
Point-2-Point
Git
JIRA
TeamForge
Bus
CC
Eclipse
Tools
Data model, transport, mechanisms, synchronization
Platform
• Metadata
• References
Authenticate, Authorize (Roles)
• Bus service
catalogue
What is a Bus ?
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
CRM Bus
[DSB]
ERP Bus
[DSB]
PLM Service Bus
[DSB]
R&D Bus
[DSB]
OSLC
Supply
Sales &
Marketing
Finance
HR
PPM &
Product
Information
M&A Bus
[DSB]
B2B Bus
[DSB]
Merger and
acquisition
Partner /
Customer
OSLC
System
Open Source
toolset
Engineering
ALM
PLM
Enterprise
Extended
Strategies
5 main strategies
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Point-to-point integrations
Vendor Suite integration
Vendor Platform integration
Commercial Middleware integration
Open Standards integration
OSLC
Open Service for Lifecycle Collaboration
›
›
›
›
›
A set of OASIS standard API’s in the ALM space
www.open-services.net
YouTube video
Eclipse Lyo - an OSLC SDK
Specifications and workgroups:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Change Management
Requirements Management
Quality Management
Architecture Management
Configuration Management
Asset Management
Embedded Systems
Mobile
Reporting
ALM-PLM interoperability
… and more
Use Case
Flow challenge
Fault found in design
on already released
code. TR is raised,
becomes master and
links back to RTC.
Fixed on both tracks.
Fault found in design,
fixed in the same or
next sprint (Agile)
1 Defect WI in RTC
Defect WI in RTC
ID: RTC-004
Title: Wrong label
Descr.: Bla, bla…
State: Found | Fixed
Link: -
ID: RTC-009
Title: Bad sector
Descr.: State: Link: TR-1234
2
Fault found in maintenance.
Analyze shows same code in
other maintenance track and in
design. Cloned to a TR as well
as RTC. Fixed in all tracks.
TR in MHWeb
TR in MHWeb
ID: TR-1234
Product: 1/23 ABC-456
Title: Bad sector
Descr.: Bla, bla…
State: Analysed | Corr |
Resolved | CCB | Release
ShoDet: Design phase
DiDet: In field
ID: TR-7890
Title: Loss of data
Descr.: Bla, bla…
DiDet: At FOA
Link: RTC-009
Link: RTC-023,
TR-7891
TR in MHWeb
3
ID: TR-7891
Title: Loss of data
Descr.: Bla, bla…
Defect WI in RTC
ID: RTC-009
DiDet:
At FOA
Title: Bad
sector
Descr.: Link: RTC-023,
State: TR-7890
Link: TR-7890, TR-7891
Design
flow
(low ceremony)
sprint
sprint
shipment
sprint
sprint
sprint
sprint
sprint
sprint
shipment
Correction
Correction
Maintenance track A
correction
Maintenance flow
(high ceremony)
Maintenance track B
Defect
Clone
Initial implementation
› A new Work-Item type (TR WI) is added to RTC. It is a copy with subset of the MHWeb TR data and
business logic, kept in synch.
› Architectural concerns:
–
–
–
–
Same (similar) data is copied into two repositories. Master? Will it diverge?
Same (similar) business logic in two locations. Master? Will it diverge?
MHWeb TR logic within RTC. Do we want to tailor RTC with heavy logic?
Unclear when to use Defect WI vs. TR WI
MHWeb
RTC
Defect WI
TR WI
TR
Business logic triggers
Subset of MHweb data
kept in synch
existing type
new type
existing type
OSLC but not
as intended
Final solution
› MHWeb TR’s can be viewed and manipulated from RTC as if they were part of RTC
(some limitations). A Defect WI link acts as TR reference.
› User concerns:
–
–
–
–
Can’t make reports on TR’s within RTC (requires data warehouse)
Can’t see status changes in MHWeb from RTC
Will have to use MHWeb much more than anticipated (mental change)
Some limitations in UI delegate editing
MHWeb
RTC
Defect WI
TR
UI delegate
existing type
existing type
Link
True OSLC
RTC – MHWEB: on over
RTC – MHWEB: UI Delegate
Mats Berglund
Enterprise Architect
 The Lean & Agile transformation has caused an explosion of tools
 An open integration framework is needed
 Integration from enterprise to team level - and across silos
 We shall be pragmatic
 Loosely coupled is the way to go
Q&A

Presentation Mats Berglund

Transcription

Similar documents

Ericsson Engineering Integration Framework - ICES