5.1 Sprint retrospective - mariusb03/WebAndApplication-group-18 GitHub Wiki

Sprint 1:

What Went Well:
This sprint involved planning and creating the group contract. This process went straightforwardly, and the group contract was completed early. After the first checkpoint, we received some feedback from the teacher and had to make a few changes.

Improvements:
The group was originally supposed to consist of three members. Sivert and Marius started the group, and two others joined later. During this phase, a third person also wished to join, but this created some friction within the group. This caused the group to split, which made the start a bit more difficult.

Work Distribution:
Sivert ended up doing most of the documentation and felt that there was a somewhat lackluster effort from the rest of the group.

Sprint 2:

What Went Well:
The wireframe was detailed and functional. The ER and Use Case diagrams were completed before the checkpoint.

Improvements:
The Use Case and ER diagrams could have been more detailed.

Work Distribution:
Sivert ended up creating most of the wireframe and also completed the ER and Use Case diagrams.
Marius worked on the content inside the Course Information page, Login page, Cart page, and About Us page.

Sprint 3:

What Went Well:
The homepage was finished, and Sivert gained a better understanding of how HTML and JavaScript work.

Improvements:
Lackluster engagement from Marius.

Work Distribution:
Sivert did most of the work, created the homepage, and designed the top and bottom sections of the application.

Sprint 4:

What Went Well:
Sivert gained a better understanding of how Spring Boot works, especially in combination with the database.

Improvements:
Work should be better distributed within the team.

Work Distribution:
Sivert did most of the work, including setting up the database using Spring Boot.

Sprint 5:

What Went Well:
The work distribution started to improve, and front-end development began progressing faster.

Improvements:
The team needs to collaborate more effectively.

Work Distribution:
Sivert should take a larger role in front-end development.
Marius should contribute more to the back-end development.

Sprint 6:

What Went Well:
The team started to collaborate more effectively, holding regular meetings and helping each other complete tasks.
This made it easier to work and improved task distribution. Additionally, it became easier to solve problems.
The team decided to try converting the project into a static web page.

Improvements:
The team needs to have a more equal role in both front-end and back-end programming.

Work Distribution:
This sprint was more balanced, roughly 50/50.
Sivert focused mostly on the back-end and did a bit of front-end.
Marius focused mainly on the front-end and contributed slightly to the back-end.

Sprint 7:

What Went Well:
The teamwork was strong. The team met up every day except for the weekend.

Improvements:
The team should not have attempted to make the project static so late in the semester, as it ended up wasting some time.

Work Distribution:
Same as the last sprint, but the documentation effort was more equally shared between members.