July 2005 - Posts

RSS from VSTS/TFVC
27 July 05 05:05 PM | dmckinstry | with no comments

I’ve had people ask me in our Team System classes about using an RSS feed for reporting status from the Team Foundation Server.  I’ve seen several discussions on the subject and it always seems simple but I didn’t have a good example.  Now, Jeff Lucovsky (Microsoft) has posted his reference code for an RSS feed from Team Foundation Version Control.  The code is not supported but it is simple enough that many users will be able to take ownership of it in their own environments.  Thanks Jeff!

http://blogs.msdn.com/jefflu/archive/2005/07/27/443900.aspx

VSTS Rocks, Really!
26 July 05 10:36 AM | dmckinstry | with no comments

I know that sometimes I’m a little harsh on VSTS, but I really do think it is an excellent product with a great future.  If you’re already following the blogosphere and forums related to VSTS, you’re probably already aware of www.TeamSystemRocks.com (aka www.VSTSRocks.com).

If you are aware of it, this is just a little reminder.  Omar has been diligently working to set the site up, post new content and just make it a great Team System resource.  Chris and Mickey have both moved their blogs there and continue to post meaningful original content.

And if that isn’t enough, there are some great tutorial videos available on the site.  Check it out!  And remember…  Team System Rocks!

 

Team Foundation Server (Beta 2) over HTTP
25 July 05 05:02 PM | dmckinstry | 7 comment(s)

 I can’t wait anymore!!!!  I’ve lied and I admit it… and I feel so ashamed. Ok, perhaps that’s a little too dramatic and I’m not even certain that I’ve lied.  But I may have misled people…

One of the things I do for a living is provide Team System training.  And during that training we talk about distributed teams.  We have slides and labs that we’ve developed along with Microsoft, et. al., which discuss the fact that Team Foundation Server is HTTP-based to enable distributed development.  All of the slides that truly talk to remote teams are centered on the Team Foundation Version Control (TFVC) portion of the product, but there were implications that the system was fully HTTP-based.  If you were in one of my classes and understood that to be the case, I apologize.

How do I know it’s not true? There seems to be a glitch in B2 that caused the challenge/response authentication mechanism in VS2005 Beta 2 to only work the first time you connect to the server.  Last week I pursued a work-around for this ‘feature’ for one of our clients; I chose to build an HTTP proxy with the authentication information built-in.  I was able to connect to a remote TFS Server, list and select projects, and operate with the version control system fairly easily through the authentication proxy.  But when I drilled into the Team Project in Team Explorer, I would get one or more application or security related errors.  I didn’t get the reporting or document library portions of the Team Explorer to work, but I suspect that if I’d been more persistent with security configurations I might have been successful.  I was able to list builds remotely but couldn’t really interact with them.  But my real issue: I couldn’t get Work Items to work!!!!

When I pulled out a network sniffer I was shocked to discover some un-identified TCP traffic that went over the network when I was trying to access the work item subsystem!  The traffic looked the similar regardless of whether I was trying to access work items from Team Explorer or Excel.  Needless to say, my ‘simple’ HTTP proxy was out of the question.

I was hoping to see a release of the July CTP with (wishful thinking) the authentication bug gone and/or everything running over HTTP.  When the CTP comes out, I will review it and let you know if it looks any better.

I guess if there is a bright side, the install at the client site went well and we were able to work around the authentication – we at least have a happy customer and a successful VSTS installation.

Read-Only MS Project files on VSTS Project Portal
12 July 05 10:15 AM | dmckinstry | 2 comment(s)

 Why do MPP files come down as read-only from a VSTS Project Portal?

I can’t say why but I do have a few observations, including some workarounds.  First, the observations…

1.      The Read-Only flag only seems to happen with MPP files.  Microsoft Word and Excel both seem to do a good job of not marking the document as Read-Only.  As an aside, Word and Excel both warn that I should trust the source whereas Project opens right up as Read-Only.

2.      This behavior is the same whether you go through Internet Explorer into the Project Portal or through Team Explorer.

3.      Check Out functionality does not seem make a difference.  A checked-out MPP file will still open as Read-Only in Microsoft Project.

4.      Likewise, the behavior occurs regardless of the version history settings on the document library.

5.      This behavior is consistent with other non-VSTS WSS document libraries.  That is, the behavior seems to be based on how Windows SharePoint Services and Microsoft Project cooperate; Team System is just an innocent bystander.

So, what can you do about it?

1.      Ignore the warning!  The easiest work around is to open it as you normally would, make your changes, and save it back out.  When you are informed that the file is read-only, answer OK. 
You should be prompted with the Save As dialog, select the original file, click Save and then answer Yes to the question about replacing the existing file.

2.      Work off-line.  That is, download the file to a local file system, edit it as normal using Project, and then save it back to the local file system.  When your changes are complete, use the Upload capability of WSS to move the file back into the document library.  Believe it or not, you won’t even be prompted about overwriting the existing file.  But that is ok… the new version of the MPP file will be written into the document library over (or as a new version to) the old file.

If anyone knows what’s really going on here, please feel free to share.  Otherwise, I’ll keep using my workarounds.

Filed under: Team System

How do the MSF 4.0 siblings compare today?
09 July 05 08:59 PM | dmckinstry | 2 comment(s)

 So, how does MSF for Agile Software Development compare to MSF for CMMI® Process Improvement?  Well, here’s a summary based on the current published process guidance…

 

MSF for Agile Software Development	MSF for CMMI® Process Improvement
Concepts
Looks very similar between both releases at this time.
Cycles and Iterations
Aside from the acknowledgement of “Program” in the graphic for CMMI®, the two appear identical.
Governance
Summarized as: Are we doing the right thing? Can we do it within time and budget? Are we ready to integrate? Are we ready to deploy? Are we realizing the value?	Not much larger than the agile version, but definitely targeted at a more formal process.  It brings the classic MSF phases and major milestones into view along with similar questions to the agile version.
Principles and Core Ideas
Summarized as: Partner with Customers Foster open communications Work toward a shared vision Quality is everyone's job every day Stay agile, adapt to change Make deployment a habit Flow of value	The same as Agile, including all of the Core Ideas listed on the left.  Includes a little extra text ending with “The net result is a lightweight, agile, adaptive process for highly productive software engineering that provides a significant accelerator to achieving a CMMI® Level 3 assessment and lays the groundwork for achievement of Level 4 and 5 in future.”
Team Model
Both contain the same text laying out seven different advocacy groups:  Program Management, Architecture, Product Management, Development, User Experience, Test and Release Operations.
Mindsets
Both seem to have the same mindsets, summarized as: Quality Is Defined By Customer, Pride of Workmanship, Team of Peers, Frequent Delivery, Willingness to Learn, Get Specific Early, Qualities of Service, and Citizenship.
Roles
Agile maps 6 roles to the different advocacy groups:  Business Analyst, Project Manager, Architect, Developer, Tester and Release Manager.	Approximately eighteen roles are mapped to the seven advocacy groups.  For example, the Product Management group contains the following roles:  Business Analyst, Sponsor, SME, Auditor and Product Manager.
Work Item Types
Bug Quality of Service Requirement Scenario Risk Task	Task Change Request Risk Review Requirement Bug Issue
Views
The two seem to have identical content regarding views, Disciplines, Qualities of Service, and Cycles.  The Agile process also has content on “Tracks” but it looks a lot like the MSF classic phases and the governance text provided in the CMMI® process.  My guess is that the two are supposed to be nearly identical but the CMMI® release is a newer release.
CMMI
Not likely…	There is a new CMMI tab in this process guidance.  It has a lot of documentation under it.  The top level navigation includes:  About CMMI, Process Management, Project Management, Engineering, Support, Generic Goal Level 2, Generic Goal Level 3 and All Process Areas.
Work Streams
Create Solution Architecture Capture Project Vision Create a Quality of Service Requirement Create a Scenario Build a Product Fix a Bug Implement a Development Task Guide Iteration Guide Project Plan an Iteration Release a Product Close a Bug Test a Quality of Service Requirement Test a Scenario	Analysis Create a Quality of Service Requirement Create Solution Architecture Establish Environments Build a Product Create a Scenario Create Product Requirements Manage Change Requests Fix a Bug Implement a Development Task Capture Product Vision Issue Management Plan an Iteration Plan Project Risk Management Baseline Configuration Management Establish Project Process Release a Product Close a Bug Test a Quality of Service Requirement Test a Scenario Verify a Functional Requirement Verify an Operational Requirement Develop Documentation
Activities
68 activities, most (if not all) of which also appear in the CMMI® process guidance.	157 activities defined including such classics as “Assess Alternatives (LAAAM)”, “Form Iteration Team(s)”, “IPMO Iteration Review” and “Populate Organization Process Asset Library”.
Work Products
24 documented work products.  Several of them are duplicated in the CMMI® process guidance.	50 documented work products from “Application Connection Diagram” to “Web Test”.
Reports
Remaining Work Velocity Unplanned Work Quality Indicators Bug Rates Reactivations Bugs by Priority Actual Quality versus Planned Velocity	Remaining Work Velocity Unplanned Work Quality Indicators Bug Rates Reactivations Bugs by Priority Actual Quality versus Planned Velocity Open Issues and Blocked Work Items Trend Test History Customer Requirements Test History Product Requirements Test History Triage Inconsistencies Report Tasks Linked to Risks Status and Drill Down Test Failures
Queries
All Quality of Service Requirements Active Bugs All My Team Project Work Items All Scenarios All Work Items My Work Items Project Checklist Resolved Bugs All Tasks	Active Bugs All My Team Project Work Items All Tasks All Work Items (by Iteration) Summary and Drill Down Blocked Work Items (by Iteration) Summary and Drill Down Change Requests (by Iteration) Summary and Drill Down Corrective Actions (by Iteration) Summary and Drill Down Customer Requirements (by Iteration) Summary and Drill Down Development Tasks (by Iteration) Status and Drill Down Issue (by Iteration) Summary and Drill Down Mitigation Action Status My Work Items Product Requirements (by Iteration) Status and Drill Down Project Checklist Resolved Bugs Review (by Iteration) Summary and Drill Down Risks (by Iteration) Summary and Drill Down Tasks (by Iteration) Summary and Drill Down Test Tasks (by Iteration) Status and Drill Down
How To’s
“How To’s” appear to be identical in both documents.
Zip File size
8 MB	10MB
Download Link
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/thankyou.aspx?familyId=9F3EA426-C2B2-4264-BA0F-35A021D85234&displayLang=en	http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=10B578F1-B7A4-459F-A783-04BC82CB2359&displaylang=en

 

Note:  Both of these process guidance documents are still in a pre-release state.  Assumedly the CMMI® guidance is ‘more’ pre-release than the agile, but both are likely to change before they become released products.

 

 

CMMI Unveiled!
08 July 05 10:51 PM | dmckinstry | with no comments

 Ok, so it’s still a pre-release, but it is a lot more than we’ve seen to date.  I’ve been following MSF 4.0 fairly closely and now I have something to blog about!  Well, perhaps not much, but I do have a pre-release of MSF for CMMI® Process Improvement installed on one of by beta 2 VPCs.

For clarification, “installed” means unzipped.  I couldn’t find a Methodology XML file to import, but I did find WssTasks and a few other artifacts that make me think it is more than just the process guidance.  But I couldn’t find enough to actually install the process templates.

First impressions:  It looks a lot like MSF for Agile Software Development but it has more stuff.  For example, in each of the Advocacy Groups there are multiple roles.  Product Management now has Business Analyst, Sponsor, SME, Auditor and Product Manager whereas Agile only had Business Analyst.  The Work Item list looks more comfortable for most people; that is, they recognize Requirement, Review and Change Request in place of Scenario and Quality of Service Requirement. 

I’m sure there are many other differences and I’ll let you know what else I find later this weekend.  If you have some time to read the docs, download it and take a look!

 

.