MRO

1

• MRO
• Archive Readiness and End to End Testing
• Edward Guinness and Susan Slavney
• Washington University
• Presented to PDS Management Council
• August 2, 2006

2
Data ARchive Working Group

• The DARWG has been chaired by Carl Kloss, JPL,
  who is retiring. Brian Hammer, JPL, will be the
  new DARWG Chair.
• Document status
• Archive Plan V1.1 was signed in January 2006.
• ICDs All signed except ONC Imaging ICD, which
  is in progress.
• SIS Documents and Peer Reviews
• CRISM EDR/RDR review is complete, documents are
  complete but being revised.
• HiRISE EDR review is complete, RDR SIS is in
  progress.
• SHARAD EDR/RDR review is in progress.
• CTX / MARCI EDR SISs are in draft form, not yet
  reviewed.
• ONC Will be safed according to agreement with
  Imaging Node (TBD).
• MCS EDR and RDR SISs are ready for peer review.
• ACC SIS documents are in progress, not yet
  reviewed.
• Local data dictionary was submitted to EN will
  be revised as a result of E2E tests

3
End-To-End Test Summary

• Purpose To exercise MRO science data flow from
  instrument teams through PDS.
• Approach Conduct a series of engineering tests
  to identify and correct problems before the first
  PDS delivery in June 2007.
• Tests participants
• HiRISE ? Imaging Node ? Engineering Node
• CTX / MARCI ? Imaging Node ? Engineering Node
• CRISM ? Geosciences Node ? Engineering Node
• SHARAD ? Geosciences Node ? Engineering Node
• MCS ? Atmospheres Node ? Engineering Node

4
Test Plan Four Phases

• Test 1, May 2006 (Completed)
• Team delivers one EDR to PDS Node using any
  agreed delivery method
• Node validates product against EDR SIS and PDS
  standards
• Test 2, July 2006 (In progress)
• Team delivers complete archive volume with at
  least one EDR generated by operational software,
  using planned delivery mechanism
• Node validates archive volume against EDR SIS,
  Archive SIS, and PDS standards
• Team verifies availability of product at node
  through PDS catalog search
• Test 3, October 2006
• EDR Test Same as Test 2 but with one days worth
  of EDRs
• RDR Test Same as Test 1 but with one RDR
• Both EDRs and RDRs to be assembled into archive
  volumes
• Test 4, February 2007
• Same as Test 3, but with seven days worth of
  EDRs and RDRs
• Additional test if needed in April or May, 2007

5
Test Status

• Test 1, May 2006
• Test completed
• Preliminary report issued with several minor
  Discrepancy Reports (DRs)
• Lien issued No CTX/MARCI testing
• Test 2, July 2006
• Test period completed
• Report in progress

6
Test Details CRISM ? Geosciences

• Test 1 Success Test 1 requirements met.
• Also satisfied CRISM Test 2 requirements as well.
• Data transferred 350 EDR Products 2300 files
  700 Mb
• EDRs validated against PDS standards and EDR SIS.
• Results 1 DR on PDS data dictionary, 2 DRs on
  minor label errors
• DRs were corrected in Test 2
• Test 2 - Success Test 2 requirements met.
• Data transferred same as Test 1 plus a few
  corrected files
• EDR archive assembled at Geosciences using inputs
  from CRISM team
• EDRs validated against PDS standards and EDR
  SISs
• Archive validated against PDS standards and
  Archive SIS
• Results 1 DR on PDS data dictionary, 5 DRs on
  minor label errors

7
Test Details SHARAD ? Geosciences

• Test 1 Success Test 1 requirements met.
• Data transferred Two hand-generated EDRs (10
  files, 13 MB)
• Transferred via FTP from ASDC in Italy to
  Geosciences
• EDRs validated against PDS standards and EDR SIS.
• Results 1 DR on PDS data dictionary, 1 DR on
  minor label errors
• DRs were corrected in Test 2
• Test 2 Success Test 2 requirements met.
• Data transferred 225 EDRs 660 files 2.95 GB
• Products were generated by SHARAD processing
  software
• Files were transferred from ASDC to Geosciences
  using the planned daily automated FTP-based
  transfer system
• EDRs validated against PDS standards and EDR SISs
• Archive validated against PDS standards and
  Archive SIS
• Results 1 DR on PDS data dictionary, 3 DRs on
  minor label errors

8
Test Details HiRISE ? Imaging

• Test 1 Success Test 1 requirements met.
• Used automatically generated EDRs from HiRISE
  team.
• Data transferred 28 automatically-generated EDRs
  500 MB
• Files transferred from HiROC to PDS IN using
  product and profile servers.
• EDRs validated against PDS standards and EDR SIS.
• Results No AIs generated.
• Test 2 Success Test 2 requirements met.
• Used automatically generated EDRs from HiRISE
  team.
• Files transferred from HiROC to PDS IN using
  product and profile servers.
• Data transferred 28 EDRs 500 MB.
• EDRs validated against PDS standards and EDR
  SISs
• Archive validated against PDS standards and
  Archive SIS
• Results No AIs generated

9
Test Details CTX/MARCI ? Imaging

• Test 1 Failure Test 1 Not Conducted
• Instrument team not ready.
• Test 2 Success Test 2 minimal requirements
  met.
• Used automatically generated EDRs from instrument
  team.
• Files transferred from MSSS to Imaging Node using
  FTP.
• Data transferred 3 EDRs 300 MB.
• EDRs validated against PDS standards and EDR
  SISs.
• Results Test minimally successful, but peer
  review of data and SISs has not been conducted,
  and no draft Archive SIS has been produced.

10
Test Details MCS ? Atmospheres

• Test 1 Completed Report TBD
• Test 2 Completed Report TBD

11
Test Details Engineering Node

• Test 2 Success Test 2 requirements met.
• Number of Catalog Files ingested 25
• MISSION.CAT, INSTHOST.CAT, CRISM (5), SHARAD
  (5), CTX (3), MARCI (3), HiRISE (4), MCS (3)
• Number of Resource Links ingested 7
• Number of Release Objects ingested 7
• Number of MRO Test Subscriptions 4 (MCS
  Sharad, 2 CRISM)
• PDS Data Search capability verified 6 data sets
  
• Provided updated MRO Local Data Dictionary
• Results
• 3 DRs on subscription incompletion
• 4 DRs on incomplete data access verification
• 1 DR on EN Test Bed data set catalog files need
  to be re-ingested to display Abstract
  Description values
• Lesson Learned
• First use of the test bed, good experience
  learned to facilitate future mission End to End
  tests.

12
Conclusion

• Lessons Learned
• Tests are useful for identifying problems before
  first delivery.
• Tests help push instrument teams to finish SISs.
• Tests can highlight problems in instrument
  processing software in time to make corrections
  before production begins.
• We recommend future missions consider conducting
  E2E tests.