This project is read-only.

Time available seems way off

Jan 29, 2010 at 6:47 PM

We've been using this tool for several months now and love it. We rely on the "Ahead of Schedule by" value because it does a great job of considering people's workdays and free/busy info to give us an idea whether we are ahead/behind schedule. Many thanks to Pedro and anyone else that has contributed.

I upgraded to the v1.0.0.38839 a few days ago (last upgrade was about 6 weeks back) and really like the burndown and other, allow for single monitor, and other UI changes. However, our Time Available and "Ahead of Schedule by" values have gone through the roof and no longer seem remotely accurate. I've double checked our config files to be sure there wasn't any problems there. The next step is to try to step through the code and figure out what is going on, but I thought I'd see if someone else has noticed this change and whether or not it was intentional.

Jan 30, 2010 at 1:06 AM

Hi pgauthier,


I'm glad to know that you're finding the monitor useful. As for the "Ahead of Schedule" value, there shouldn't have been any change there. Can you tell me if you see any <= sign as a prefix to the value. If yes, that would mean that the tool could not gather free/busy information for all the team members, and therefore it would include time that could actually be marked as busy, causing the value to be inflated.

Feb 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Edited Feb 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM

The Time Available has the <=, but the Ahead of Schedule does not. Our current sprint will end on Feb 16. That leaves 12 work days. We have 4 team members with the same entry in team-info.xml:

<team-member name="Gauthier, Paul">
    <time-zone>Central Standard Time</time-zone>
 <avatar provider="" />

The unassigned member has the same hours. This should give each team member 6 hrs per day - any outlook busy time to dedicate to the sprint. So, even if everyone had the whole 6 hours to use, I thought it would be something less than 12 work days * 4 team members * 6 hours per day = 288 hours. We show <= 449 and ahead of schedule by 268. I also noticed that if I reduce the work day by one hour in the team-member file, both the Time Available and the Ahead of Schedule By values go up 24 hours. I think it should change by 12. I have double check the sprint config file and the Sprint work item in TFS.

I'll keep looking. If no one else is having the trouble, it's likely something in our config files. Although I don't think the team-info.xml was changed at all and the sprint config was just updated to the current sprint. I'll let you know if I find anything more.

Thanks for your help and thanks again for a great tool.

Feb 1, 2010 at 6:09 PM

It clearly sounds like the available times are getting doubled, somehow. Is there any chance you could send me your config files by e-mail (after editing out any sensible information, of course)?


Also, and in an unrelated note, the fact that you see the <= sign means that you are not getting a connection to Outlook. From your message, I gather you haven't disabled the integration intentionally, so something else is going on. In my experience there are a couple of things that cause a failed connection to Outlook: Outlook is not responding to COM calls and the machine needs to be restarted, or it is asking for the credentials in the background and you can't see the window.

Feb 1, 2010 at 7:09 PM

I'd be happy to send the config files along to you. I haven't had much success locating an email address for you though. If you don't want to post your addresss here, you can DM me on twitter @pgauthier and I'll email them to you.

I'll take a look at the Outlook piece too. I did restart the machine and it always asks me for outlook credentials when I start the app. I supply those but still get the <=. However, it always seemed to take outlook info into account. I opened Outlook 2007 on the machine and made sure the user that we are logging in as has access to free/busy info on everyone.

Feb 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM

OK, just follow me @scrumsprintmon then, so I can DM you.

Feb 1, 2010 at 7:39 PM


Feb 2, 2010 at 1:21 AM
This discussion has been copied to a work item. Click here to go to the work item and continue the discussion.