50 likes | 167 Views
ATLAS Trigger/DAQ Workshop Chamonix 19-23 OCtober 1998. LVL2 Trigger Software Process.
E N D
ATLAS Trigger/DAQ Workshop Chamonix 19-23 OCtober 1998 LVL2 Trigger Software Process A.Belias5, R. Bock2, A. Bogaerts2, M.Boosten2, J. Bystricky8, D.Botterill5, D.Calvet8, P.Clarke9, J.M.Conte8, R.Cranfield9, G.Crone9, M.Dobson2, A.Dos Anjos2, S.Falciano7, F.Giacomini2, A.Guglielmi3, R.Hauser2, M.Huet8, R.Hughes-Jones4, K.Korcyl2, P.Le Du8, I.Mandjavidze8, R.P.Middleton5, D.Pelkman2, S.Qian6, J.Schlereth1, M.Sessler2, P.Sherwood9, S.Tapprogge2, W.Wiedenmann6, P.Werner2, F.Wickens5, H. Zobernig6 1Argonne National Lab, 2CERN, 3DEC Joint Project Office, 4University of Manchester, 5Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, 6University of Wisconsin, 7University of Rome, 8CEA Saclay , 9UCL A.Bogaerts2
LVL2 Trigger Software Process • Software Process gradually introduced in the Reference Software from Feb. 98 • pragmatic approach motivated by the desire to produce better quality software • no extensive evaluation of techniques and tools • it is a culture with a learning process • there is room for commonality and some general support • perceived advantages: quality - continuity - collaborative development
Classical Approach • User requirements Feb - March 98 • Analysis, High level design April - Aug 98 • Prototyping Aug - Oct 98 • Implementation Oct - Dec 98 • Quality assurance, testing, support ?
History • Weekly meeting with telephone conferencing • Set up a WWW server • User Requirements: LVL2 URD, lessons learned from Demonstrator Programme • Example of architectures, synthesis resulting in generic architecture • OO approach adopted • OO technique courses, books, examples • some use of Rose UML • Steering/Algorithms rethought in OO way • two workshops (May 98 CEA/Paris, July 98 RAL) • High Level design in ~ 25 Technical Notes (WWW access) • Design review Sept/Oct 98 • Adopt CVS (but not SRT), AFS, unrestricted read access, controlled write access • Adopt C++ (Linux), Visual C++, STL, Cygnus environment for WNT • ACE, ILU evaluated (and for the time being rejected) • Use CVS/AFS repository, snapshot (tar) files, pre-compiled libraries • Prototyping (distributed activity) • Integration week at CERN 12-16 Oct 98 • Implementation, testing, quality control ?
Common Approach • Support for Conferencing, acess to CERN machines and file systems • Tools and other licensed products should be available to outside institutes • Organisation of courses, availability of books, WEB sites • Tools and Templates for all types of documents required during the entire process (requirements, analysis, design, implementation, users’ guides). We use Framemaker with a very incomplete set of templates. • A set of tested tools already customised for writing and managing code (e.g. emacs, compilers, libraries, makefiles, cvs, release tools) for all supported platforms (Linux and WNT for the reference software) • Support for agreed platforms (Linux, WNT): installation, management, backups • Platform independence remains important (e.g. Cygnus for WNT) • Coding Style Guides • Software Distribution (CVS, AFS common file system, SRT) • Software installation and Configuration (we rely on CVS, AFS as common file base, makefiles) • Testing, Verification, Validation: not yet addressed • Project Management: WWW is the most valuable tool