CS2113/T Website - Admin: Project: mid-v1.2 [week 8]

Relevant: [Admin Project Deliverables → Notes for Those Using AB-2 or AB-3 for the Project ]

There is no explicit penalty for switching to a lower level AB. All projects are evaluated based on the same yardstick irrespective of on which AB it is based. As an AB is given to you as a 'free' head-start, a lower level AB gives you a shorter head-start, which means you may have to set up certain things by yourself. Nevertheless, you should switch to AB2/3 if you feel you can learn more from the project that way, as our goal is to maximize learning, not features.
If your team wants to stay with AB-4 but you want to switch to a lower level AB, let the us know so that we can work something out for you.

If you have opted to use AB-2 or AB-3 instead of AB-4 as the basis of your product, please note the following points:

Set up auto-publishing of documentation similar to AB-4
Add Project Portfolio Pages (PPP) for members, similar to the example provided in AB-4
You can convert UG, DG, and PPP into pdf files using instructions provided in AB-4 DG
Create an About Us page similar to AB-4 and update it as described in mid-v1.1 progress guide

Set up project repo, start moving UG and DG to the repo, attempt to do local-impact changes to the code base.

Project Management:

Set up the team org and the team repo as explained below:

Relevant: [Admin Appendix E(extract): Organization setup ]

Relevant: [Admin Appendix E(extract): Repo setup ]

Repo setup

Only one team member:

Fork either Address Book Level 3 or Address Book Level 4 to your team org.
Rename the forked repo as main. This repo (let's call it the team repo) is to be used as the repo for your project.
Ensure the issue tracker of your team repo is enabled. Reason: our bots will be posting your weekly progress reports on the issue tracker of your team repo.
Ensure your team members have the desired level of access to your team repo.
Enable Travis CI for the team repo.
Set up auto-publishing of docs. When set up correctly, your project website should be available via the URL https://nus-cs2113-ay1819s2-{team-id}.github.io/main e.g., https://cs2113-ay1819s2-w13-1.github.io/main/. This also requires you to enable the GitHub Pages feature of your team repo and configure it to serve the website from the gh-pages branch.
create a team PR for us to track your project progress: i.e., create a PR from your team repo master branch to [nuscs2113-AY1819S2/addressbook-level4] master branch. PR name: [Team ID] Product Name e.g., [T09-2] Contact List Pro. As you merge code to your team repo's master branch, this PR will auto-update to reflect how much your team's product has progressed. In the PR description @mention the other team members so that they get notified when the tutor adds comments to the PR.

All team members:

Watchthe main repo (created above) i.e., go to the repo and click on the watch button to subscribe to activities of the repo
Fork the main repo to your personal GitHub account.
Clone the fork to your Computer.
Recommended: Set it up as an Intellij project (follow the instructions in the Developer Guide carefully).
Set up the developer environment in your computer. You are recommended to use JDK 9 for AB-4 as some of the libraries used in AB-4 have not updated to support Java 10 yet. JDK 9 can be downloaded from the Java Archive.

Note that some of our download scripts depend on the following folder paths. Please do not alter those paths in your project.

/src/main
/src/test
/docs

Note: If you fork from Address Book Level 3, ensure that the folder structure is similar to the one in Address Book Level 4

When updating code in the repo, follow the workflow explained below:

Relevant: [Admin Appendix E(extract): Workflow ]

Workflow

Before you do any coding for the project,

Ensure you have set the Git username correctly (as explained in Appendix E) in all Computers you use for coding.
Read our reuse policy (in Admin: Appendix B), in particular, how to give credit when you reuse code from the Internet or classmates:

Policy on reuse

Reuse is encouraged. However, note that reuse has its own costs (such as the learning curve, additional complexity, usage restrictions, and unknown bugs). Furthermore, you will not be given credit for work done by others. Rather, you will be given credit for using work done by others.

You are allowed to reuse work from your classmates, subject to following conditions:
- The work has been published by us or the authors.
- You clearly give credit to the original author(s).
You are allowed to reuse work from external sources, subject to following conditions:
- The work comes from a source of 'good standing' (such as an established open source project). This means you cannot reuse code written by an outside 'friend'.
- You clearly give credit to the original author. Acknowledge use of third party resources clearly e.g. in the welcome message, splash screen (if any) or under the 'about' menu. If you are open about reuse, you are less likely to get into trouble if you unintentionally reused something copyrighted.
- You do not violate the license under which the work has been released. Please do not use 3rd-party images/audio in your software unless they have been specifically released to be used freely. Just because you found it in the Internet does not mean it is free for reuse.
- Always get permission from us before you reuse third-party libraries. Please post your 'request to use 3rd party library' in our forum. That way, the whole class get to see what libraries are being used by others.
- This also ensures you learn the ethics to attribute credits to the correct stake holders/owners.

Giving credit for reused work

Given below are how to give credit for things you reuse from elsewhere. These requirements are specific to this module i.e., not applicable outside the module (outside the module you should follow the rules specified by your employer and the license of the reused work)

If you used a third party library:

Mention in the README.adoc (under the Acknowledgements section)
mention in the Project Portfolio Page if the library has a significant relevance to the features you implemented

If you reused code snippets found on the Internet e.g. from StackOverflow answers or
referred code in another software or
referred project code by current/past student:

If you read the code to understand the approach and implemented it yourself, mention it as a comment
Example:

//Solution below adapted from https://stackoverflow.com/a/16252290
{Your implmentation of the reused solution here ...}

If you copy-pasted a non-trivial code block (possibly with minor modifications renaming, layout changes, changes to comments, etc.), also mark the code block as reused code (using @@author tags)
Format:

//@@author {yourGithubUsername}-reused
//{Info about the source...}

{Reused code (possibly with minor modifications) here ...}

//@@author

Example of reusing a code snippet (with minor modifications):

persons = getList()
//@@author johndoe-reused
//Reused from https://stackoverflow.com/a/34646172 with minor modifications
Collections.sort(persons, new Comparator<CustomData>() {
    @Override
    public int compare(CustomData lhs, CustomData rhs) {
        return lhs.customInt > rhs.customInt ? -1 : (lhs.customInt < rhs.customInt) ? 1 : 0;
    }
});
//@@author
return persons;

Adding `@@author` tags 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.
```

<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.

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 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-ay1819s2.github.io/dashboard-beta/#=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: docs/team/githbub_username_in_lower_case.adoc e.g., docs/team/johndoe.adoc
- Follow the example in the AddressBook-Level4
- 💡 You can use the Asciidoc's include feature to include sections from the developer guide or the user guide in your PPP. Follow the example in the sample.
- 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 wrote 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	1-3 (soft limit)
Contributions to the Developer Guide	3-6 (soft limit)
Total	5-10 (strict)

The page limits given above are after converting to PDF format. The actual amount of content you require is actually less than what these numbers suggest because the HTML → PDF conversion adds a lot of spacing around content.
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.

Follow the forking workflow in your project up to v1.1. In particular,

Get team members to review PRs. A workflow without PR reviews is a risky workflow.
Do not merge PRs failing CI. After setting up Travis, the CI status of a PR is reported at the bottom of the PR page. The screenshot below shows the status of a PR that is passing all CI checks.

If there is a failure, you can click on the Details link in corresponding line to find out more about the failure. Once you figure out the cause of the failure, push the a fix to the PR.
After setting up Netlify, you can use Netlify PR Preview to preview changes to documentation files, if the PR contains updates to documentation. To see the preview, click on the Details link in front of the Netlify status reported (refer screenshot above).

After completing v1.1, you can adjust process rigor to suit your team's pace, as explained below.

Reduce automated tests have benefits, but they can be a pain to write/maintain; GUI tests are especially hard to maintain because their behavior can sometimes depend on things such as the OS, resolution etc.
It is OK to get rid of some of the troublesome tests and rely more on manual testing instead. The less automated tests you have, the higher the risk of regressions; but it may be an acceptable trade-off under the circumstances if tests are slowing you down too much.
There is no direct penalty for removing GUI tests. Also note our expectation on test code.
Reduce automated checks: You can also reduce the rigor of checkstyle checks to expedite PR processing.
Switch to a lighter workflow: While forking workflow is the safest, it is also rather heavy. You an switch to a simpler workflow if the forking workflow is slowing you down. Refer the textbook to find more about alternative workflows: branching workflow, centralized workflow. However, we still recommend that you use PR reviews, at least for PRs affecting others' features.

You can also increase the rigor/safety of your workflow in the following ways:

Use GitHub's Protected Branches feature to protect your master branch against rogue PRs.

Project Management → Revision Control →

Forking Flow

In the forking workflow, the 'official' version of the software is kept in a remote repo designated as the 'main repo'. All team members fork the main repo create pull requests from their fork to the main repo.

To illustrate how the workflow goes, let’s assume Jean wants to fix a bug in the code. Here are the steps:

Jean creates a separate branch in her local repo and fixes the bug in that branch.
Jean pushes the branch to her fork.
Jean creates a pull request from that branch in her fork to the main repo.
Other members review Jean’s pull request.
If reviewers suggested any changes, Jean updates the PR accordingly.
When reviewers are satisfied with the PR, one of the members (usually the team lead or a designated 'maintainer' of the main repo) merges the PR, which brings Jean’s code to the main repo.
Other members, realizing there is new code in the upstream repo, sync their forks with the new upstream repo (i.e. the main repo). This is done by pulling the new code to their own local repo and pushing the updated code to their own fork.

A detailed explanation of the Forking Workflow - From Atlassian

Documentation:

Recommended procedure for updating docs:

Divide among yourselves who will update which parts of the document(s).
Update the team repo by following the workflow mentioned above.

Update the following pages in your project repo:

About Us page: This page is used for module admin purposes. Please follow the format closely or else our scripts will not be able to give credit for your work.
- Replace info of SE-EDU developers with info of your team, including a suitable photo as described here.
- Including the name/photo of the supervisor/lecturer is optional.
- The photo of a team member should be doc/images/githbub_username_in_lower_case.png e.g. docs/images/damithc.png. If you photo is in jpg format, name the file as .png anyway.
- Indicate the different roles played and responsibilities held by each team member. You can reassign these roles and responsibilities (as explained in Admin Project Scope) later in the project, if necessary.

Contact Us Page: Update to match your product.
README.adoc page: Update it to match your project.
- Add a UI mockup of your intended final product.
  Note that the image of the UI should be docs/images/Ui.png so that it can be downloaded by our scripts. Limit the file to contain one screenshot/mockup only and ensure the new image is roughly the same height x width proportions as the original one. Reason: when we compile these images from all teams into one page (example), yours should not look out of place.
- The original README.adoc file (which doubles as the landing page of your project website) is written to read like the introduction to an SE learning/teaching resource. You should restructure this page to look like the home page of a real product (not a school project) targeting real users e.g. remove references to addressbook-level3, Learning Outcomes etc. mention target users, add a marketing blurb etc. On a related note, also remove Learning Outcomes link and related pages.
- Update the link of the Travis build status badge () so that it reflects the build status of your team repo.
  For the other badges,
  - either set up the respective tool for your project (AB-4 Developer Guide has instructions on how to set up AppVeyor and Coveralls) and update the badges accordingly,
  - or remove the badge.
- Acknowledge the original source of the code i.e. AddressBook-Level4 project created by SE-EDU initiative at https://github.com/se-edu/
User Guide: Start moving the content from your User Guide (draft created in previous weeks) into the User Guide page in your repository. If a feature is not implemented, mark it as 'Coming in v2.0' (example).
Developer Guide: Similar to the User Guide, start moving the content from your Developer Guide (draft created in previous weeks) into the Developer Guide page in your team repository.

Product:

Each member can attempt to do a local-impact change to the code base.

Objective: To familiarize yourself with at least one components of the product.

Description: Divide the components among yourselves. Each member can do some small enhancements to their component(s) to learn the code of that component. Some suggested enhancements are given in the AddressBook-Level4 developer guide.

Submission: Create PRs from your own fork to your team repo. Get it merged by following your team's workflow.

Relevant: [Admin Appendix E(extract): Workflow (after v1.1) ]

After completing v1.1, you can adjust process rigor to suit your team's pace, as explained below.

Reduce automated tests have benefits, but they can be a pain to write/maintain; GUI tests are especially hard to maintain because their behavior can sometimes depend on things such as the OS, resolution etc.
It is OK to get rid of some of the troublesome tests and rely more on manual testing instead. The less automated tests you have, the higher the risk of regressions; but it may be an acceptable trade-off under the circumstances if tests are slowing you down too much.
There is no direct penalty for removing GUI tests. Also note our expectation on test code.
Reduce automated checks: You can also reduce the rigor of checkstyle checks to expedite PR processing.
Switch to a lighter workflow: While forking workflow is the safest, it is also rather heavy. You an switch to a simpler workflow if the forking workflow is slowing you down. Refer the textbook to find more about alternative workflows: branching workflow, centralized workflow. However, we still recommend that you use PR reviews, at least for PRs affecting others' features.

You can also increase the rigor/safety of your workflow in the following ways:

Use GitHub's Protected Branches feature to protect your master branch against rogue PRs.

Relevant: [Admin Appendix E(extract): Setting up the issue tracker ]

Issue tracker setup

We recommend you configure the issue tracker of the main repo as follows:

Delete existing labels and add the following labels.
💡 Issue type labels are useful from the beginning of the project. The other labels are needed only when you start implementing the features.

Issue type labels:

type.Epic : A big feature which can be broken down into smaller stories e.g. search
type.Story : A user story
type.Enhancement: An enhancement to an existing story
type.Task : Something that needs to be done, but not a story, bug, or an epic. e.g. Move testing code into a new folder)
type.Bug : A bug

Status labels:

status.Ongoing : The issue is currently being worked on. note: remove this label before closing an issue.

Priority labels:

priority.High : Must do
priority.Medium : Nice to have
priority.Low : Unlikely to do

Bug Severity labels:

severity.Low : A flaw that is unlikely to affect normal operations of the product. Appears only in very rare situations and causes a minor inconvenience only.
severity.Medium : A flaw that causes occasional inconvenience to some users but they can continue to use the product.
severity.High : A flaw that affects most users and causes major problems for users. i.e., makes the product almost unusable for most users.

Create following milestones : v1.0, v1.1, v1.2, v1.3, v1.4,
You may configure other project settings as you wish. e.g. more labels, more milestones

Relevant: [Admin Appendix E(extract): Project schedule tracking ]

Project Schedule Tracking

In general, use the issue tracker (Milestones, Issues, PRs, Tags, Releases, and Labels) for assigning, scheduling, and tracking all noteworthy project tasks, including user stories. Update the issue tracker regularly to reflect the current status of the project. You can also use GitHub's Projects feature to manage the project, but keep it linked to the issue tracker as much as you can.

Using Issues:

During the initial stages (latest by the start of v1.2):

Record each of the user stories you plan to deliver as an issue in the issue tracker. e.g. Title: As a user I can add a deadline
Description: ... so that I can keep track of my deadlines
Assign the type.* and priority.* labels to those issues.
Formalize the project plan by assigning relevant issues to the corresponding milestone.

From milestone v1.2:

Define project tasks as issues. When you start implementing a user story (or a feature), break it down to smaller tasks if necessary. Define reasonable sized, standalone tasks. Create issues for each of those tasks so that they can be tracked.e.g.
- A typical task should be able to done by one person, in a few hours.
  - Bad (reasons: not a one-person task, not small enough): Write the Developer Guide
  - Good: Update class diagram in the Developer Guide for v1.4
- There is no need to break things into VERY small tasks. Keep them as big as possible, but they should be no bigger than what you are going to assign a single person to do within a week. eg.,
  - Bad:Implementing parser (reason: too big).
  - Good:Implementing parser support for adding of floating tasks
- Do not track things taken for granted. e.g., push code to repo should not be a task to track. In the example given under the previous point, it is taken for granted that the owner will also (a) test the code and (b) push to the repo when it is ready. Those two need not be tracked as separate tasks.
- Write a descriptive title for the issue. e.g. Add support for the 'undo' command to the parser
  - Omit redundant details. In some cases, the issue title is enough to describe the task. In that case, no need to repeat it in the issue description. There is no need for well-crafted and detailed descriptions for tasks. A minimal description is enough. Similarly, labels such as priority can be omitted if you think they don't help you.
Assign tasks (i.e., issues) to the corresponding team members using the assignees field. Normally, there should be some ongoing tasks and some pending tasks against each team member at any point.
Optionally, you can use status.ongoing label to indicate issues currently ongoing.

Using Milestones:

We recommend you do proper milestone management starting from v1.2. Given below are the conditions to satisfy for a milestone to be considered properly managed:

Planning a Milestone:

Issues assigned to the milestone, team members assigned to issues: Used GitHub milestones to indicate which issues are to be handled for which milestone by assigning issues to suitable milestones. Also make sure those issues are assigned to team members. Note that you can change the milestone plan along the way as necessary.
Deadline set for the milestones (in the GitHub milestone). Your internal milestones can be set earlier than the deadlines we have set, to give you a buffer.

Wrapping up a Milestone:

A working product tagged with the correct tag (e.g. v1.2) and is pushed to the main repo
or a product release done on GitHub. A product release is optional for v1.2 but required from from v1.3. Click here to see an example release.
All tests passing on Travis for the version tagged/released.
Milestone updated to match the product i.e. all issues completed and PRs merged for the milestone should be assigned to the milestone. Incomplete issues/PRs should be moved to a future milestone.
Milestone closed.
If necessary, future milestones are revised based on what you experienced in the current milestone e.g. if you could not finish all issues assigned to the current milestone, it is a sign that you overestimated how much you can do in a week, which means you might want to reduce the issues assigned to future milestones to match that observation.

Project: mid-v1.2 [week 8]

Organization setup