I received the following feedback for my Project 1, Part 1 & 2 code. Note, that at this point I only have function description comments and empty stubs for the Monster class methods. I had a family health related emergency so I am a bit behind on the assignments.
Variable names: are they meaningful and clear?
The variable names are clear, such as defenseMin, attackMax, healthPoints, and fainted.
Logic that could be more efficient
The logic efficiency is good, and simple getters/setters are efficient.
Unused imports or warnings.
No unused imports. ArrayList and List are used.
Clear formatting
The formatting is good, with consistent indentation and brace placement. Methods are logically grouped.
Are there comments?
Class level javadoc to explain the purpose and authorship of the work. With the TODOs explaining what needs to be worked on. For example, setPhrase() call in the constructor. Some are missing, but that is expected as this isn't the final product.
Do all the tests pass
No, they do not pass, which is expected as this is not the final product and simply a work in progress.
The variable names are clear, such as defenseMin, attackMax, healthPoints, and fainted.
Logic that could be more efficient
The logic efficiency is good, and simple getters/setters are efficient.
Unused imports or warnings.
No unused imports. ArrayList and List are used.
Clear formatting
The formatting is good, with consistent indentation and brace placement. Methods are logically grouped.
Are there comments?
Class level javadoc to explain the purpose and authorship of the work. With the TODOs explaining what needs to be worked on. For example, setPhrase() call in the constructor. Some are missing, but that is expected as this isn't the final product.
Do all the tests pass
No, they do not pass, which is expected as this is not the final product and simply a work in progress.
These are some bits from this weeks reflective prompt.
What improvements would you make to your code/what was suggested?
At this stage of the implementation there wasn't much room for suggestions.
How would you change the unit tests?
The test cases seem reasonable and are based on the assignment requirements. If we were doing something more like black box testing of an opaque package, maybe they could be more thorough. For example, the setAttackPointsTest() might try passing a negative value to confirm that the operation fails. For our purposes though, the test cases seem fine as they are.
What did you struggle with?
No major struggle at this stage of my implementation. I had a family health emergency so I am not as far along as my teammates are.
What did your teammates struggle with?
One had some minor hurdles getting used to the different output string formatting that Java uses versus C++. Another had some trouble with the inheritance paradigm, i.e., subcalsses and setters/getters. The other had some trouble understanding the logical flow of the program. There wasn't necessarily a trend with the challenges we faced in the implementation process. They were all unique.
What are you most proud of on your submission for Project 1?
At this stage I am glad that it lines up with the prompt and is a good starting point.
No comments:
Post a Comment