repl.it
linkReview a PR created by your classmates by following the steps given below. Note that you are expected to have read the following guidelines as given in this week's iP tasks:
Admin Using GitHub → Guidelines for Reviewing PRs
We expect the PR peer-review to be mutually beneficial to the reviewer and the author. i.e., you receive suggestions on how to improve your code, and get to learn alternative designs by reading others' code.
Guidelines for authors:
iP PR review allocation
Team | Reviewer | PR to review |
---|---|---|
CS2113T-M16-1 | E0309556 | alwayshuizhen |
CS2113T-M16-1 | Keith-JK | yantingsanity |
CS2113T-M16-1 | jichngan | jinfayap |
CS2113T-M16-1 | joelczk | JensonWee |
CS2113T-M16-1 | lwxymere | cheongisabella |
CS2113T-M16-2 | JensonWee | zi-hui |
CS2113T-M16-2 | alwayshuizhen | lwxymere |
CS2113T-M16-2 | cheongisabella | jichngan |
CS2113T-M16-2 | jinfayap | joelczk |
CS2113T-M16-2 | yantingsanity | E0309556 |
CS2113T-M16-2 | zi-hui | Keith-JK |
CS2113T-T12-1 | MeLoveCarbs | sliu107 |
CS2113T-T12-1 | lowxizhi | ananda-lye |
CS2113T-T12-1 | matthewc97 | GanapathySanathBalaji |
CS2113T-T12-1 | synCKun | btricec |
CS2113T-T12-2 | Janicetyy | JTWang2000 |
CS2113T-T12-2 | NyanWunPaing | quinnyyy |
CS2113T-T12-2 | itskesin | NizarMohd |
CS2113T-T12-2 | sitinadiah25 | siuhian |
CS2113T-T12-3 | GanapathySanathBalaji | SibingWu |
CS2113T-T12-3 | NizarMohd | alexlim510 |
CS2113T-T12-3 | hongquan448 | g-lilian |
CS2113T-T12-3 | terrytay | DDzuikeai |
CS2113T-T12-4 | anqi-nus | iceclementi |
CS2113T-T12-4 | benchan911 | Andrew880228 |
CS2113T-T12-4 | harithadiv | trishaangelica |
CS2113T-T12-4 | lowjiayee | JosephLimWeiJie |
CS2113T-T13-1 | JLoh579 | matthewc97 |
CS2113T-T13-1 | Shannonwje | yuchenlichuck |
CS2113T-T13-1 | jiajuinphoon | lowxizhi |
CS2113T-T13-1 | kokjoon97 | Janicetyy |
CS2113T-T13-1 | trishaangelica | hongquan448 |
CS2113T-T13-2 | A11riseforme | synCKun |
CS2113T-T13-2 | HAOYUN49 | melylopez99 |
CS2113T-T13-2 | iceclementi | Jeremy733 |
CS2113T-T13-2 | wangqinNick | Yukilite |
CS2113T-T13-3 | JustinnT | JeremiasLiew |
CS2113T-T13-3 | Yukilite | jiajuinphoon |
CS2113T-T13-3 | andy-aw-why | dejunnn |
CS2113T-T13-3 | brandoncjh | nigellenl |
CS2113T-T13-3 | thanhduc2000 | Zhilin-Huang |
CS2113-T14-1 | Andrew880228 | andy-aw-why |
CS2113-T14-1 | Zhilin-Huang | Bencotti |
CS2113-T14-1 | g-lilian | wangqinNick |
CS2113-T14-1 | quinnyyy | nguan1 |
CS2113-T14-1 | sliu107 | JustinnT |
CS2113-T14-2 | alaukiknpant | JLoh579 |
CS2113-T14-2 | katelo731 | lamyuewei |
CS2113-T14-2 | melylopez99 | rsanchez-macias |
CS2113-T14-2 | yolanmz | gmuthu17 |
CS2113-T14-3 | Bencotti | lowjiayee |
CS2113-T14-3 | JTWang2000 | harithadiv |
CS2113-T14-3 | rsanchez-macias | anqi-nus |
CS2113-T14-3 | yuchenlichuck | alaukiknpant |
CS2113-T14-4 | JosephLimWeiJie | kcubey |
CS2113-T14-4 | SibingWu | benchan911 |
CS2113-T14-4 | gmuthu17 | RenzoTsai |
CS2113-T14-4 | nguan1 | terrytay |
CS2113-T15-1 | ananda-lye | chengTzeNing |
CS2113-T15-1 | btricec | sitinadiah25 |
CS2113-T15-1 | nigellenl | NyanWunPaing |
CS2113-T15-1 | rdimaio | bennychanya |
CS2113-T15-1 | siuhian | itskesin |
CS2113-T15-2 | JeremiasLiew | katelo731 |
CS2113-T15-2 | Jeremy733 | DeetoMok |
CS2113-T15-2 | alexlim510 | HAOYUN49 |
CS2113-T15-2 | kcubey | thanhduc2000 |
CS2113-T15-3 | DeetoMok | yolanmz |
CS2113-T15-3 | RenzoTsai | yuxianglim |
CS2113-T15-3 | bennychanya | MeLoveCarbs |
CS2113-T15-3 | chengTzeNing | rdimaio |
CS2113-T15-4 | DDzuikeai | Shannonwje |
CS2113-T15-4 | dejunnn | kokjoon97 |
CS2113-T15-4 | lamyuewei | brandoncjh |
CS2113-T15-4 | yuxianglim | A11riseforme |
If the student you have been allocated to review has not created a PR (or the PR has a trivial amount of code), you can choose another PR that is allocated to another student in your own tutorial but not in your sub-team.
Tip for future reference: GitHub allows you to filter PRs/Issues using various criteria such as author:AuthorUsername
(example -- see the filters
text box in the target page).
Alternatively, you can use PR labels (if any) to filter PRs/Issues.
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:
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
orputX
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 (not the 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):
As this is a peer review of PRs, you are not expected to always know better than the PR author. Feel free to,
This way of doing X seems much cleaner that the way I did. Nice :+1:
I find this use of class X interesting? May I know why you did it this way instead of ...?
Step 5 Finish the review. When it is time to end the tutorial, finish the review as follows:
Comment
option (not Approve
or Request changes
).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]
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.
Admin Using GitHub → Guidelines for Reviewing PRs
We expect the PR peer-review to be mutually beneficial to the reviewer and the author. i.e., you receive suggestions on how to improve your code, and get to learn alternative designs by reading others' code.
Guidelines for authors: