TA Feedback Project Part 5 - RostarSynergistics/ShinyExpenseTracker GitHub Wiki

##Code Base of Prototype

Good

  • compiles w/o errors or warnings
  • finished new requirements
  • code quality is good
  • consistent code style

Holding you back from excellence

  • did not finish initial requirements

##Tangible Demo

Good

  • built-in help :)
  • seems rehearsed
  • mostly well presented (loud enough, engaging)
  • teamwork

Holding you back from excellence

  • video/demo not representative of final codebase
  • a bit short

##Code Documentation

Good

  • event handlers documented
  • documentation compiled & in repo
  • info on how intents are used

Holding you back from excellence

  • some classes have no class-level comment
  • some documentation is pretty skimpy. For instance, Coordinate.distanceTo() returns a distance in meters, which is pretty important to know. It could be km, feet, miles, etc...

##Test Cases

Good

  • lots of tests
  • some view tests
  • model coverage is good

Holding you back from excellence

  • a bunch of tests that are not enabled because they don't really work
  • The rubric asks for "Implemented for every Use Case" which is not really the case

##OOD

Good

  • UML class diagram contains all important classes
  • sequence diagram exists, is described on wiki
  • lifelines & activation boxes look good
  • sequence diagram well-labelled
  • Smells MVC-ish

Holding you back from excellence

  • class diagram is very messy! Very hard to read
  • class diagram has almost no comments
  • class diagram includes unimportant classes such as NetworkStateReceiver
  • no aggregation/composition on class diagram
  • Design patterns not labelled in any diagrams, not included in class names either (eg. XSingleton)

##Addressing Feedback

Good

  • addressed feedback about:
  • alert dialogs
  • model validation
  • using uuids instead of numeric indices to identify model objects
  • added issues for addressing feedback on github

##Refactoring

Misc

  • not all of your refactorings are listed..

Good

  • wiki page describing changes
  • pull request linked from wiki

##Power Use Tool

Good

  • Usage and description in wiki

Requirements Specification (new requirements)

Good

  • some use cases added / updated

Holding you back from excellence

  • user stories not updated on wiki
  • #158 is not a good use case. If you want to cover multiple similar user stories without repeating yourself, make a use case (such as "select a geolocation") and then include it in the similar use cases.
  • tests inconsistent, do not cover use some use cases very well or at all
  • some user story changes not accounted for in use cases (eg. update to 05.01.01)

##Tool Use of Git/Wiki/Issues

I have been very happy with your use of git/github throughout the semester.

##Video Demo

  • simple demonstration of app