Week 4 [from Wed Jan 29 noon] - Tutorial

1 Discuss tP progress

• Show your collaborative project doc(s) to the tutor.
• Share the project direction (i.e., user profile, value proposition) you have decided upon.
• Give feedback to the other team. Some examples:
  • Suppose you belong to the proposed target user group; do you find the value proposition attractive?
  • Do you foresee any potential violation of the project constraints?

2 Review Peer iP PRs

• Step 1 Form sub-groups of 2 (preferred) or 3 (if unavoidable) members. You can form sub-groups between tP teams that are under the same tutor.
• Step 2 Open the PR allocated to you, as given in the panel below.

• Step 3 Review the code for coding standard compliance. You can view the code in the PR by clicking on the Files changed tab. When you find a possible coding standard violation, do the following:

  1. Show it to your review partner(s) to confirm it is indeed a violation. You can seek tutor's opinion if you are not sure.
  2. Add a comment to communicate your finding with the author.
     

     • Hover over the offending line of code and click on the + that appears to start the comment.

     • Write your comment ( You can use GFMD syntax in your comment)
       e.g., Shouldn't this be **in a new line**, as per our _coding standard_? :thinking:
       

       Shouldn't this be in a new line, as per our coding standard? 🤔
       

       e.g.,
       

       Also consider alternative names such as doX or putX here, which might be more in line with the coding standard.

     • As illustrated in the examples above, phrasing comments as questions or using words such as 'consider' (instead of You should do X or Change this to X) is recommended to reflect that you are a peer, not a superior.

     • When you are done writing the comment, click on the Start a review (not the Add single comment button)

• Step 4 Review the code for code quality best practices you have learned so far. When you find a potential opportunity to improve the code quality, confirm with your review partners (and the tutor, if needed) and add a comment as before. Some code quality issues you can check for (not an exhaustive list):

  • Methods that are too long
  • Code nested too deeply
  • Not enough SLAP
  • Names that can be improved
  • Logic hard to understand

• Step 5 Finish the review. When it is time to end the tutorial, finish the review as follows:

  1. Click on the Finish your review at the top of the page.
  2. Choose the Comment option (not Approve or Request changes).
  3. In the comment box, mention your review partners e.g., Also took part in this review @JonhDoe. You can also give an overall comment about the code e.g.,

     Overall, we found your code easy to read for the most part except a few places
     where the nesting was too deep. Hope our comments help you improve the code further.
     All the best for your iP :-)
     [Also took part in this review: @JonhDoe]
     

  4. Click on the Submit review button to finish the review.

• Step 6 [After the tutorial] Respond to comments received. You are recommended to (but not obliged to) respond to comments received from peers, especially if the PR reviewer asked you for more info. As mentioned in the guidelines below, do not get into arguments with PR reviewers/authors.