This site is from a past semester! The current version is here.
CS2113/T Aug '19
Schedule
  • Week 1 [Aug 12]
  • Week 2 [Aug 19]
  • Week 3 [Aug 26]
  • Week 4 [Sep 2]
  • Week 5 [Sep 9]
  • Week 6 [Sep 16]
  • Week 7 [Sep 30]
  • Week 8 [Oct 7]
  • Week 9 [Oct 14]
  • Week 10 [Oct 21]
  • Week 11 [Oct 28]
  • Week 12 [Nov 4]
  • Week 13 [Nov 11]
  • Textbook
  • Admin Info
    • Links
  • Report Bugs
  • Slack
  • Forum
  • Project Info
  • Instructors
  • Announcements
  • File Submissions
  • Tutorial Schedule
  • Duke
  • Project Phase1 Dashboard
  • Java Coding Standard
  • samplerepo-things
  • Projects List
  • config.json templates for Reposense
  • PersonalAssistant-Duke
  • Project Phase2 Dashboard
  • Reference project - Addressbook
  • Repl.it classroom
    •

    • Previous WeekNext Week

    Week 10 [Oct 21]

    Admin Project: mid-v1.3 [week 10]

    Submit a draft of the DG for review. Continue to enhance features. Make code RepoSense-compatible. Try doing a proper release of your product.

    Submission

    • Submit the updated developer guide (pdf) this week on LumiNUS.
    • Ensure that you follow the proper naming convention.
      • The file name should be [Team id]-Product name-DG.pdf e.g., [AY1920S1-CS2113T-F10-3]-ProDuke-DG.pdf
      • While we won't penalize you now, you will be penalized for not adhering to the naming convention in your final submission

    Product:

    • Do a proper product release as described in the reference project DevOps page. You can name it something like v1.2.1.
      Ensure that the jar file works as expected by doing some manual testing.
      Reason: You are required to do a proper product release for v1.3. Doing a trial at this point will help you iron out any problems in advance.
      It may take additional effort to get the jar working especially if you use third party libraries or additional assets such as images.

    Documentation:

    • User Guide: Update where the document does not match the current product.
    • Developer Guide:
      • Each member should describe the implementation of at least one enhancement (s)he has added (or planning to add).
        Expected length: 1+ page of technical content per person
        • The description can contain things such as,
          • How the feature is implemented.
          • Why it is implemented that way.
          • Alternatives considered.
        • The stated objective is to explain the implementation to a future developer, but a hidden objective is to show evidence that you can document deeply-technical content using prose, examples, diagrams, code snippets, etc. appropriately. To that end, you may also describe features that you plan to implement in the future, even beyond v1.4 (hypothetically).
        • For an example, see the description of the undo/redo feature implementation in the reference project's developer guide.
      • Move the user stories, use cases and NFR under Appendix: Requirements

    Project Management:

    Ensure your code is RepoSense-compatible, as explained below:

    We recommend you ensure your code is RepoSense-compatible by v1.3

    We use a tool called RepoSense to capture your contributions (i.e., each student's code) for grading.

    Figure: RepoSense Report Features

    1. View the current status of code authorship data:

    • The report generated by the tool is available at Project Code Dashboard. The feature that is most relevant to you is the Code Panel (shown on the right side of the screenshot above). It shows the code attributed to a given author. You are welcome to play around with the other features.
    • Click on your name to load the code attributed to you (based on Git blame/log data) onto the code panel on the right.
    • If the code shown roughly matches the code you wrote, all is fine and there is nothing for you to do.

    2. If the code does not match:

    • Here are the possible reasons for the code shown not to match the code you wrote:
      • the git username in some of your commits does not match your GitHub username (perhaps you missed our instructions to set your Git username to match GitHub username earlier in the project, or GitHub did not honor your Git username for some reason)
      • the actual authorship does not match the authorship determined by git blame/log e.g., another student touched your code after you wrote it, and Git log attributed the code to that student instead

    3. You can run RepoSense locally:

    • You can install reposense from the releases page, and generate the report locally to check.
    • Use the two methods described in the RepoSense User Guide section Configuring a Repo to Provide Additional Data to RepoSense to provide additional data to the authorship analysis to make it more accurate.
      • If you add a config.json file to your repo (as specified by one of the two methods):
        • If your commits have multiple author names, specify all of them e.g., "authorNames": ["theMyth", "theLegend", "theGary"]
        • If updating the config file as described above results in an accurate report, pass the list of authorNames to the lecturer so that the centralized dashboard can be updated to reflect the contributions accurately.
      • If you add @@author annotations, please follow the guidelines show below.

    Adding @@author tags to indicate authorship

    • Mark your code with a //@@author {yourGithubUsername}. Note the double @.
      The //@@author tag should indicates the beginning of the code you wrote. The code up to the next //@@author tag or the end of the file (whichever comes first) will be considered as was written by that author. Here is a sample code file:

      //@@author johndoe
method 1 ...
method 2 ...
//@@author sarahkhoo
method 3 ...
//@@author johndoe
method 4 ...

    • If you don't know who wrote the code segment below yours, you may put an empty //@@author (i.e. no GitHub username) to indicate the end of the code segment you wrote. The author of code below yours can add the GitHub username to the empty tag later. Here is a sample code with an empty author tag:

      method 0 ...
//@@author johndoe
method 1 ...
method 2 ...
//@@author
method 3 ...
method 4 ...

    • The author tag syntax varies based on file type e.g. for java, css, fxml. Use the corresponding comment syntax for non-Java files.
      Here is an example code from an xml/fxml file.

      <!-- @@author sereneWong -->
<textbox>
  <label>...</label>
  <input>...</input>
</textbox>
...

    • Do not put the //@@author inside java header comments.
      👎

      /**
  * Returns true if ...
  * @@author johndoe
  */

      👍

      //@@author johndoe
/**
  * Returns true if ...
  */

    What to and what not to annotate

    • Annotate both functional and test code There is no need to annotate documentation files.

    • Annotate only significant size code blocks that can be reviewed on its own  e.g., a class, a sequence of methods, a method.
      Claiming credit for code blocks smaller than a method is discouraged but allowed. If you do, do it sparingly and only claim meaningful blocks of code such as a block of statements, a loop, or an if-else statement.

      • If an enhancement required you to do tiny changes in many places, there is no need to annotate all those tiny changes; you can describe those changes in the Project Portfolio page instead.
      • If a code block was touched by more than one person, either let the person who wrote most of it (e.g. more than 80%) take credit for the entire block, or leave it as 'unclaimed' (i.e., no author tags).
      • Related to the above point, if you claim a code block as your own, more than 80% of the code in that block should have been written by yourself. For example, no more than 20% of it can be code you reused from somewhere.
      • 💡 GitHub has a blame feature and a history feature that can help you determine who wrote a piece of code.

    • Do not try to boost the quantity of your contribution using unethical means such as duplicating the same code in multiple places. In particular, do not copy-paste test cases to create redundant tests. Even repetitive code blocks within test methods should be extracted out as utility methods to reduce code duplication. Individual members are responsible for making sure code attributed to them are correct. If you notice a team member claiming credit for code that he/she did not write or use other questionable tactics, you can email us (after the final submission) to let us know.

    • If you wrote a significant amount of code that was not used in the final product,

      • Create a folder called {project root}/unused
      • Move unused files (or copies of files containing unused code) to that folder
      • use //@@author {yourGithubUsername}-unused to mark unused code in those files (note the suffix unused) e.g.
      //@@author johndoe-unused
method 1 ...
method 2 ...

      Please put a comment in the code to explain why it was not used.

    • If you reused code from elsewhere, mark such code as //@@author {yourGithubUsername}-reused (note the suffix reused) e.g.

      //@@author johndoe-reused
method 1 ...
method 2 ...

    • You can use empty @@author tags to mark code as not yours when RepoSense attribute the to you incorrectly.

      • Code generated by the IDE/framework, should not be annotated as your own.

      • Code you modified in minor ways e.g. adding a parameter. These should not be claimed as yours but you can mention these additional contributions in the Project Portfolio page if you want to claim credit for them.