• The product should be delivered as an executable jar file.
• Ideally, the product delivered at v1.4 should be a releasable product. However, in the interest of lowering your workload, we do not penalize if the product is not releasable, as long as the product is acceptance testable.

• The source code should match the executable, and should include the revision history of the source code, as a Git repo.

• The User Guide (UG) of the product should match the proposed v2.0 of the product and in sync with the current version of the product.
• Features not implemented yet should be clearly marked as Coming in v2.0
• Ensure the UG matches the product precisely, as it will be used by peer testers (and any inaccuracy in the content will be considered bugs).

• The Developer Guide (DG) of the product should match the proposed v2.0 of the product and should be in sync with the current version of the product.
• The appendix named Instructions for Manual Testing of the Developer Guide should include testing instructions to cover the features of each team member.
  💡 What to include in the appendix Instructions for Manual Testing? This appendix is meant to give some guidance to the tester to chart a path through the features, and provide some important test inputs the tester can copy-paste into the app. There is no need to give a long list of test cases including all possible variations. It is upto the tester to come up with those variations. However, if the instructions are inaccurate or deliberately misses/mis-states information to make testing harder  i.e. annoys the tester, the tester can report it as a bug  (because flaws in developer docs are considered as bugs).
• Ensure the DG parts included in PPPs match the product precisely, as PPPs will be used by peer evaluators (and any inaccuracy in the content will be considered bugs).

At the end of the project each student is required to submit a Project Portfolio Page.

• Objective:

  • For you to use  (e.g. in your resume) as a well-documented data point of your SE experience
  • For us to use as a data point to evaluate your,
    • contributions to the project
    • your documentation skills

• Sections to include:

  • Overview: A short overview of your product (can use the product introduction you wrote earlier) to provide some context to the reader.

  • Summary of Contributions:

    • Code contributed: Give a link to your code on Project Code Dashboard, which should be https://nuscs2113-ay1920s1.github.io/dashboard/#=undefined&search=github_username_in_lower_case (replace github_username_in_lower_case with your actual username in lower case e.g., johndoe). This link is also available in the Project List Page -- linked to the icon under your photo.
    • Features implemented: A summary of the features you implemented. If you implemented multiple features, you are recommended to indicate which one is the biggest feature.
    • Other contributions:
      • Contributions to project management e.g., setting up project tools, managing releases, managing issue tracker etc.
      • Evidence of helping others e.g. responses you posted in our forum, bugs you reported in other team's products,
      • Evidence of technical leadership e.g. sharing useful information in the forum

  • Relevant descriptions/terms/conventions: Include all relevant details necessary to understand the document, e.g., conventions, symbols or labels introduced by you, even if it was not introduced by you.

  • Contributions to the User Guide: Reproduce the parts in the User Guide that you wrote. This can include features you implemented as well as features you propose to implement.
    The purpose of allowing you to include proposed features is to provide you more flexibility to show your documentation skills. e.g. you can bring in a proposed feature just to give you an opportunity to use a UML diagram type not used by the actual features.

  • Contributions to the Developer Guide: Reproduce the parts in the Developer Guide that you wrote. Ensure there is enough content to evaluate your technical documentation skills and UML modelling skills. You can include descriptions of your design/implementations, possible alternatives, pros and cons of alternatives, etc.

  • If you plan to use the PPP in your Resume, you can also include your SE work outside of the module (will not be graded)

• Format:

  • File name: [TEAM_ID]-[Your Name]PPP.pdf e.g., [AY1920S1-CS2113T-F10-3][John Doe]PPP.pdf

  • Use one-half spacing between the lines for legibility

  • Follow this example. A PDF version of the same has been uploaded on LumiNUS.

  • 💡 You are free to choose any (collaborative) software to write the documents. However, try to follow the format of the sample user guide, developer guide and PPP given.

  • Do note that extra effort is needed in duplicating and maintaining consistency across UG/DG and PPP. This is a cost of not using automated document generation.

  • It is assumed that all contents in the PPP were written primarily by you. If any section is written by someone else  e.g. someone else described the feature in the User Guide but you implemented the feature, clearly state that the section was written by someone else  (e.g. Start of Extract [from: User Guide] written by Jane Doe).  Reason: Your writing skills will be evaluated based on the PPP

• Page limit:

  Content	Limit
  Overview + Summary of contributions	0.5-1 (soft limit)
  Contributions to the User Guide	2-4 (soft limit)
  Contributions to the Developer Guide	3-5 (soft limit)
  Total	5-8 (strict)

  • Reason for page limit: These submissions are peer-graded (in the PE) which needs to be done in a limited time span.
    

  • If you have more content than the limit given above, you can give a representative samples of UG and DG that showcase your documentation skills. Those samples should be understandable on their own. For the parts left-out, you can give an abbreviated version and refer the reader to the full UG/DG for more details.
    

  • It's similar to giving extra details as appendices; the reader will look at the UG/DG if the PPP is not enough to make a judgment. For example, when judging documentation quality, if the part in the PPP is not well-written, there is no point reading the rest in the main UG/DG. That's why you need to put the most representative part of your writings in the PPP and still give an abbreviated version of the rest in the PPP itself. Even when judging the quantity of work, the reader should be able to get a good sense of the quantity by combining what is quoted in the PPP and your abbreviated description of the missing part. There is no guarantee that the evaluator will read the full document.

• Include an updated version of the online UG and DG that match v1.4 executable
• README :
  • Ensure the Ui.png matches the current product

• AboutUs : Ensure the following:
  • Use a suitable profile photo

• Contains a link to each person's Project Portfolio page
• Team member names match full names used by LumiNUS

• Duration: Strictly 18 minutes for a 5-person team and 15 minutes for a 4-person team. Exceeding this limit will be penalized. Any set up time will be taken out of your allocated time.

• Target audience: Assume you are giving a demo to a higher-level manager of your company, to brief him/her on the current capabilities of the product. This is the first time they are seeing the new product you developed but they are familiar with CLI based products. The actual audience are the evaluators (the team supervisor and another tutor).

• Scope:

  • Each person should demo the enhancements they added. However, it's ok for one member to do all the typing.
  • Subjected to the constraint mentioned in the previous point, as far as possible, organize the demo to present a cohesive picture of the product as a whole, presented in a logical order.  Remember to explain the profile of the target user profile and value proposition early in the demo.
  • It is recommended you showcase how the feature improves the user’s life rather than simply describe each feature.
  • No need to cover design/implementation details as the manager is not interested in those details.
  • Mention features you inherited from Duke only if they are needed to explain your new features.  Reason: existing features will not earn you marks, and the audience is already familiar with Duke features.

• Structure:

  • Demo the product using the same executable you submitted, on your own laptop, using the TV.
  • It can be a sitting down demo: You'll be demonstrating the features using the TV while sitting down. But you may stand around the TV if you prefer that way.
  • It will be an uninterrupted demo: The audience members will not interrupt you during the demo. That means you should finish within the given time.
  • The demo should use a sufficient amount of realistic demo data.  e.g at least 20 data items. Trying to demo a product using just 1-2 sample data creates a bad impression.
  • Dress code : The level of formality is up to you, but it is recommended that the whole team dress at the same level.

• Optimizing the time:

  • Spend as much time as possible on demonstrating the actual product. Not recommended to use slides (if you do, use them sparingly) or videos or lengthy narrations.
    Avoid skits, re-enactments, dramatizations etc. This is not a sales pitch or an informercial. While you need to show how a user use the product to get value, but you don’t need to act like an imaginary user. For example, [Instead of this] Jim get’s a call from boss. "Ring ring", "hello", "oh hi Jim, can we postpone the meeting?" "Sure". Jim hang up and curses the boss under his breath. Now he starts typing ..etc. [do this] If Jim needs to postpone the meeting, he can type … It’s not that dramatization is bad or we don’t like it. We simply don’t have enough time for it.
    Note that CS2101 demo requirements may differ. Different context → Different requirements.
  • Rehearse the steps well and ensure you can do a smooth demo. Poor quality demos can affect your grade.
  • Don’t waste time repeating things the target audience already knows. e.g. no need to say things like "We are students from NUS, SoC".
  • Plan the demo to be in sync with the impression you want to create. For example, if you are trying to convince that the product is easy to use, show the easiest way to perform a task before you show the full command with all the bells and whistles.

• Special circumstances:

  • If a significant feature was not merged on time: inform the evaluator and get permission to show the unmerged feature using your own version of the code. Unmerged features earn much less marks than a merged equivalent but something is better than nothing.
  • If you have no user visible features to show, you can still contribute to the demo by giving an overview of the product (at the start) and/or giving a wrap of of the product (at the end).
  • If you are unable to come to the demo due to a valid reason, you can ask a team member to demo your feature. Remember to submit the evidence of your excuse e.g., MC to prof. The demo is part of module assessment and absence without a valid reason will cause you to lose marks.

Objectives:

• Evaluate your manual testing skills, product evaluation skills, effort estimation skills
• Peer-evaluate your product design , implementation effort , documentation quality
  • Note that significant project components are not graded solely based on peer ratings. Rather, PE data are mostly used to cross-validate tutors' grades and identify cases that need further investigation. When peer inputs are used for grading, they are usually combined with tutor evaluations with appropriate weight for each. In some cases ratings from team members are given a higher weight compared to ratings from other peers, if that is appropriate.
• Do note that the PE is not a means of pitting you against each other. Developers and testers play for the same side; they need to push each other to improve the quality of their work -- not bring down each other.

Grading:

• Your performance in the practical exam will be considered for your final grade (under the QA category and under Implementation category, about 10 marks in total).
• You will be graded based on your effectiveness as a tester (e.g., the percentage of the bugs you found, the nature of the bugs you found) and how far off your evaluation/estimates are from the evaluator consensus. Explanation: we understand that you have limited expertise in this area; hence, we penalize only if your inputs don't seem to be based on a sincere effort to test/evaluate.
• The bugs found in your product by others will affect your v1.4 marks. You will be given a chance to reject false-positive bug reports.

Preparation:

• Similar to PE-Dry run

Phase 1: Testing / bug reporting

When, where: Week 13 lecture

Testing

1. Take note of your team to test. It will be given to you by the teaching team (distributed via LumiNUS gradebook).
2. Download from LumiNUS all files submitted by the team (i.e. jar file, User Guide, Developer Guide, and Project Portfolio Pages) into an empty folder.
3. [60 minutes] Test the product and report bugs as described below:

Product evaluation

[Remainder of the session] Evaluate the following aspects. Note down your evaluation in a hard copy (as a backup). Submit via TEAMMATES. You are recommended to complete this during the PE session but you have until the end of the day to submit (or revise) your submissions.

• A. Product Design []:
  Evaluate the product design based on how the product V2.0 (not V1.4) is described in the User Guide.

  • unable to judge: You are unable to judge this aspect for some reason e.g., UG is not available or does not have enough information.
  • target user specified and appropriate: The target user is clearly specified, prefers typing over other modes of input, and not too general (should be narrowed to a specific user group with certain characteristics).
  • value specified and matching: The value offered by the product is clearly specified and matches the target user.
  • value: low: The value to target user is low. App is not worth using.
  • value: medium: Some small group of target users might find the app worth using.
  • value: high: Most of the target users are likely to find the app worth using.
  • feature-fit: low: Features don't seem to fit together.
  • feature-fit: medium: Some features fit together but some don't.
  • feature-fit: high: All features fit together.
  • polished: The product looks well-designed.

• B. Quality of user docs []:
  Evaluate based on the parts of the user guide written by the person, as reproduced in the project portfolio. Evaluate from an end-user perspective.

  • UG/ unable to judge: Less than 1 page worth of UG content written by the student or cannot find PPP
  • UG/ good use of visuals: Uses visuals e.g., screenshots.
  • UG/ good use of examples: Uses examples e.g., sample inputs/outputs.
  • UG/ just enough information: Not too much information. All important information is given.
  • UG/ easy to understand: The information is easy to understand for the target audience.
  • UG/ polished: The document looks neat, well-formatted, and professional.

• C. Quality of developer docs []:
  Evaluate based on the developer docs cited/reproduced in the respective project portfolio page. Evaluate from the perspective of a new developer trying to understand how the features are implemented.

  • DG/ unable to judge: Less than 0.5 pages worth of content OR other problems in the document e.g. looks like included wrong content.
  • DG/ too little: 0.5 - 1 page of documentation
  • DG/ types of UML diagrams: 1: Only one type of diagram used (types: Class Diagrams, Object Diagrams, Sequence Diagrams, Activity Diagrams, Use Case Diagrams)
  • DG/ types of UML diagrams: 2: Two types of diagrams used
  • DG/ types of UML diagrams: 3+: Three or more types of diagrams used
  • DG/ UML diagrams suitable: The diagrams used for the right purpose
  • DG/ UML notation correct: No more than one minor error in the UML notation
  • DG/ diagrams not repetitive: Same diagram is not repeated with minor differences
  • DG/ diagrams not too complicated: Diagrams don't cram too much information into them
  • DG/ diagrams integrates with text: Diagrams are well integrated into the textual explanations
  • DG/ easy to understand: The document is easy to understand/follow
  • DG/ just enough information: Not too much information. All important information is given.
  • DG/ polished: The document looks neat, well-formatted, and professional.

• D. Feature Quality []:
  Evaluate the biggest feature done by the student for difficulty, completeness, and testability. Note: examples given below assume that AB3 did not have the commands edit, undo, and redo.

  • Feature/ difficulty: unable to judge: You are unable to judge this aspect for some reason.
  • Feature/ difficulty: low: e.g. make the existing find command case insensitive.
  • Feature/ difficulty: medium: e.g. an edit command that requires the user to type all fields, even the ones that are not being edited.
  • Feature/ difficulty: high: e.g., undo/redo command
  • Feature/ completeness: unable to judge: You are unable to judge this aspect for some reason.
  • Feature/ completeness: low: A partial implementation of the feature. Barely useful.
  • Feature/ completeness: medium: The feature has enough functionality to be useful for some of the users.
  • Feature/ completeness: high: The feature has all functionality to be useful to almost all users.
  • Feature/ not hard to test: The feature was not too hard to test manually.
  • Feature/ polished: The feature looks polished (as if done by a professional programmer).

• E. Amount of work []:
  Evaluate the amount of work, on a scale of 0 to 30.

  • Consider this PR (history command) as 5 units of effort which means this PR (undo/redo command) is about 15 points of effort. Given that 30 points matches an effort twice as that needed for the undo/redo feature (which was given as an example of an A grade project), we expect most students to be have efforts lower than 20.
  • Count all implementation/testing/documentation work as mentioned in that person's PPP. Also look at the actual code written by the person.
  • Do not give a high value just to be nice. If your estimate is wildly inaccurate, it means you are unable to estimate the effort required to implement a feature in a project that you are supposed to know well at this point. You may lose marks if your estimate is wildly inaccurate

Phase 2: Developer response phase

Duration: The review period will start around 1 day after the PE (exact time to be announced) and will last until the following Tuesday midnight. However, you are recommended to finish this task ASAP, to minimize cutting into your exam preparation work.

Bug reviewing is recommended to be done as a team as some of the decisions need team consensus.