• At the end of the day:
  • teamt had their functionality ready, manually tested and were working on the tests.
  • teami was adding error and logging
  • teams was starting to develop thread management for the sb execution
  • teamd finished core functions. Module compiles, but there was not time to test it before leaving
• Progress at 18:00: 50% of second day

• First integration at the beginning of the day, code review and tests on a per component basis. Each team had to explain their code and share with others their findings. Status:
  • teamt: functionality completed, tests needed to be added, passed execution
  • teami: functionality completed, tests needed to be added, passed execution
  • teamd: 70% functionality coded with runtime errors. Took the opportunity to use gdb to debug. Code corrected
  • teams: functionality coded, not possible to test without database. Code review indicated improvement areas
• Progress at 10:00: 100% of second day reached
• Next step: focus on finishing tests, functionality and helping teamd to finish
• Progress at lunch: 30% of third day
• After lunch, code was declared frozen and an interactive debugging session on a per component session was started, with all participants
• Progress at 16:30: 60% of third day
• All components managed to start around 14:30
• Per component test until 15:00
• End to end integrated system tested (through python scripts) successfully around 15:30 on a single machine
• Progress at 15:30: 100% of third day (running on a single machine)
• End to end integrated system on a distributed until 16:15.
• Progress at 16:10: 100% of third day (running on a distributed environment)
• APPLAUSE!
• ACS Community presentation. Walk through the pages, scope, participants and discussion
• Group photo

Conclusions

• Zulema: More time explaining the course project.
• Danilo: Improve initial instructions to understand the steps that need to be taken initially
• Cesar: C++ component tutorial too advance for a component primer, a simpler step by step tutorial is needed
• Tomás: Without the characteristic components, complexity level per component is not correctly balanced. Need fully develop examples for each language. Database component blocks Scheduler development if no simulation is available.
• Jorge: specs for network, host machines need to be better specified. Need for lego toy models to make this visually attractive.
• Overall positive feedback about the course content and methodology. Four days would have help to include more topics in the course (characteristic components, notification channel, error development, threads in depth, other languages...).