CS2113/T Website - Admin: Project: v1.3 [week 11]

Release as a jar file, release updated user guide, peer-test released products, verify code authorship. Seek code quality comments from your tutor

v1.3 Summary of Milestone

Milestone	Minimum acceptable performance to consider as 'reached'
Contributed code to v1.3	code merged
Code is RepoSense-compatible	as stated in mid-v1.3
v1.3 jar file released on GitHub	as stated
v1.3 milestone properly wrapped up on GitHub	as stated
Documentation updated to match v1.3	at least the User Guide and the `README.adoc` is updated

v1.3 Project Management

Ensure your code is RepoSense-compatible, as explained in mid-v1.3.

Using RepoSense

In previous semesters we asked students to annotate all their code using special @@author tags so that we can extract each student's code for grading. This semester, we are trying out a tool called RepoSense that is expected to reduce the need for such tagging, and also make it easier for you to see (and learn from) code written by others.

_{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 (they are still under development and will not be used for grading this semester).
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
In those cases,
- Install RepoSense (see the Getting Started section of the RepoSense User Guide)
- 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),
  - Please use the template json file given in the module website so that your display name matches the name we expect it to be.
  - If your commits have multiple author names, specify all of them e.g., "authorNames": ["theMyth", "theLegend", "theGary"]
  - Update the line config.json in the .gitignore file of your repo as /config.json so that it ignores the config.json produced by the app but not the _reposense/config.json.
- If you add @@author annotations, please follow the guidelines below:

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.

After you are satisfied with the new results (i.e., results produced by running RepoSense locally), push the config.json file you added and/or the annotated code to your repo. We'll use that information the next time we run RepoSense (we run it at least once a week).
If you choose to annotate code, please annotate code chunks not smaller than a method. We do not grade code snippets smaller than a method.
If you encounter any problem when doing the above or if you have questions, please post in the forum.

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

v1.3 Product

As before, move the product towards v2.0.
Do a proper product release as described in the Developer Guide. Do some manual tests to ensure the jar file works.

v1.3 Documentation

v1.3 user guide should be updated to match the current version of the product. Reason: v1.3 will be subjected to a trial acceptance testing session

README page: Update to look like a real product (rather than a project for learning SE) if you haven't done so already. In particular, update the Ui.png to match the current product (💡 tips).

User Guide: This document will be used by acceptance testers. Update to match the current version. In particular,
- Clearly indicate which features are not implemented yet e.g. tag those features with a Coming in v2.0.
- For those features already implemented, ensure their descriptions match the exact behavior of the product e.g. replace mockups with actual screenshots
Developer Guide: As before, update if necessary.
AboutUs page: Update to reflect current state of roles and responsibilities.

Submission: Must be included in the version tagged v1.3.

v1.3 Demo

Do a quick demo of the main features using the jar file. Objective: demonstrate that the jar file works.

v1.3 Testing (aka Practical Exam Dry Run)

See info in the panel below:

Relevant: [Admin Project Deliverables → Practical Exam - Dry Run ]

What: The v1.3 is subjected to a round of peer acceptance/system testing, also called the Practical Exam Dry Run as this round of testing will be similar to the graded Practical Exam that will be done at v1.4.

When, where: uses a 45 minute slot at the end of week 11 lecture

Grading: Taking part in the PE dry run is strongly encouraged as it can affect your grade in the following ways.

If the product you are allocated to test in the Practical Exam (at v1.4) had a very low bug count, we will consider your performance in PE dry run as well when grading the PE.
PE dry run will help you practice for the actual PE.
Taking part in the PE dry run will earn you participation points.
There is no penalty for bugs reported in your product. Every bug you find is a win-win for you and the team whose product you are testing.

Objectives:

To train you to do manual testing, bug reporting, bug triaging, bug fixing, communicating with users/testers/developers, evaluating products etc.
To help you improve your product before the final submission.

Preparation:

Ensure that you can access the relevant issue tracker given below:
-- for PE Dry Run (at v1.3): nus-cs2113-AY1819S2/pe-dry-run
-- for PE (at v1.4): nus-cs2113-AY1819S2/pe (will open only near the actual PE)
- These are private repos!. If you cannot access the relevant repo, you may not have accepted the invitation to join the GitHub org used by the module. Go to https://github.com/orgs/nus-cs2113-AY1819S2/invitation to accept the invitation.
- If you cannot find the invitation, post in our forum.
Ensure you have access to a computer that is able to run module projects e.g. has the right Java version.
Have a good screen grab tool with annotation features so that you can quickly take a screenshot of a bug, annotate it, and post in the issue tracker.
- 💡 You can use Ctrl+V to paste a picture from the clipboard into a text box in GitHub issue tracker.
Charge your computer before coming to the PE session. The testing venue may not have enough charging points.

During the session:

Take note of your team to test. Distributed via LumiNUS gradebook.
Download the latest jar file from the team's GitHub page. Copy it to an empty folder.
Confirm you are testing the allocated product by comparing the product UI with the UI screenshot seen in the project dashboard.

Testing instructions for PE and PE Dry Run

What to test:
- PE Dry Run (at v1.3):
  - Test the product based on the User Guide (the UG is most likely accessible using the help command).
  - Do system testing first i.e., does the product work as specified by the documentation?. If there is time left, you can do acceptance testing as well i.e., does the product solve the problem it claims to solve?.
- PE (at v1.4):
  - Test based on the Developer Guide (Appendix named Instructions for Manual Testing) and the User Guide. The testing instructions in the Developer Guide can provide you some guidance but if you follow those instructions strictly, you are unlikely to find many bugs. You can deviate from the instructions to probe areas that are more likely to have bugs.
  - As before, do both system testing and acceptance testing but give priority to system testing as system testing bugs can earn you more credit.
These are considered bugs:
- Behavior differs from the User Guide (or Developer Guide)
- A legitimate user behavior is not handled e.g. incorrect commands, extra parameters
- Behavior is not specified and differs from normal expectations e.g. error message does not match the error
- The feature does not solve the stated problem of the intended user i.e., the feature is 'incomplete'
- Problems in the User Guide e.g., missing/incorrect info
Where to report bugs: Post bug in the following issue trackers (not in the team's repo):
- PE Dry Run (at v1.3): nusCS2113-AY1819S2/pe-dry-run.
- PE (at v1.4): nusCS2113-AY1819S2/pe.
Bug report format:
- Post bugs as you find them (i.e., do not wait to post all bugs at the end) because the issue tracker will close exactly at the end of the allocated time.
- Do not use team ID in bug reports. Reason: to prevent others copying your bug reports
- Each bug should be a separate issue.
- Write good quality bug reports; poor quality or incorrect bug reports will not earn credit.
- Use a descriptive title.
- Give a good description of the bug with steps to reproduce and screenshots.
- Assign a severity to the bug report. Bug report without a severity label are considered severity.Low (lower severity bugs earn lower credit).

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.

About posting suggestions:
- PE Dry Run (at v1.3): You can also post suggestions on how to improve the product. 💡 Be diplomatic when reporting bugs or suggesting improvements. For example, instead of criticising the current behavior, simply suggest alternatives to consider.
- PE (at v1.4): Do not post suggestions. But if a feature is missing a critical functionality that makes the feature less useful to the intended user, it can be reported as a bug.
If the product doesn't work at all: If the product fails catastrophically e.g., cannot even launch, please ask for the fallback team allocated to you from the instructor.

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.

After the session:

We'll transfer the relevant bug reports to your repo over the weekend. Once you have received the bug reports for your product, it is up to you to decide whether you will act on reported issues before the final submission v1.4. For some issues, the correct decision could be to reject or postpone to a version beyond v1.4.
You can post in the issue thread to communicate with the tester e.g. to ask for more info, etc. However, the tester is not obliged to respond.
- 💡 Do not argue with the issue reporter to try to convince that person that your way is correct/better. If at all, you can gently explain the rationale for the current behavior but do not waste time getting involved in long arguments. If you think the suggestion/bug is unreasonable, just thank the reporter for their view and close the issue.

Project: v1.3 [week 11]

v1.3 Project Management

Using RepoSense

Adding @@author tags indicate authorship

What to and what not to annotate

v1.3 Product

v1.3 Documentation

v1.3 Demo

v1.3 Testing (aka Practical Exam Dry Run)

Testing instructions for PE and PE Dry Run

Processing PE Bug Reports:

Testing instructions for PE and PE Dry Run

Adding `@@author` tags indicate authorship