Appendices for the ERS Elixir/Potato GUSC IoT Paper

<p>Note: all mentions of other figures/sections/tables are in reference to the paper.</p> <p><strong>website_sensor_node_software.png</strong> and <strong>website_sensors.png</strong> are screenshots of the Statuses section of the website in ERS-FH after sensor node software and sensor failures occur. The screenshots of the website after the sensor node hardware and lost data failures are shown in Figure 7.</p> <p><strong>full_code_coverage_barchart.png</strong> is a graph that provides the functional analysis for all seven codebases considered in the study, i.e. including the CWS and CRS codebases that use a non-idiomatic SQL DBMS, and hence are not suitable comparators for Section 4. The figure extends Figure 4.<br><em>Caption: "Comparing the percentage of code required to implement each functionality in tiered/tierless and resource-rich/constrained GUSC implementations."</em></p> <p><strong>full_sloc_table.png</strong> is a table that provides the comparative coverage analysis for all seven codebases considered in the study, i.e. including the CWS and CRS codebases. It extends Table 2 in Section 4.&nbsp;<br><em>Caption: "Comparing Tiered and Tierless GUSC Code Sizes for all seven codebases studied. PWS, PRS, CWS, CRS, CWS-NS, and CRS-NS values based on Table 2 in [7]. Original SQL-based CWS and CRS converted to idiomatic SDS-based CWS-NS and CRS-NS."</em></p>