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.

  <!-- @@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.

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.