Scribd
Upload
7 views2 pages

Opposing

The document provides a detailed evaluation of a project, assigning points based on various criteria such as README usability, code standards, documentation, and game playability. The project received a total of 7 points, with strengths in unit testing coverage and overall game experience, but weaknesses in code formatting and README detail. Feedback suggests improvements in project structure and documentation for enhanced clarity and usability.

Uploaded by

berekettesfaye991
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views2 pages

Opposing

The document provides a detailed evaluation of a project, assigning points based on various criteria such as README usability, code standards, documentation, and game playability. The project received a total of 7 points, with strengths in unit testing coverage and overall game experience, but weaknesses in code formatting and README detail. Feedback suggests improvements in project structure and documentation for enhanced clarity and usability.

Uploaded by

berekettesfaye991
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Opposing <group 15>

By <Group 18>

POINTS AWARDED: 7

2024-03-25

Bereket Tesfaye
Ghanasham Saravaiahgari
Ghazal chamto

Notes from class when we talked about setting points 0-10 on each project.

Set up to 1 point for each part.

1.The README is the starting point, is it usable and complete.

 I assigned a rating of 0.5 for the README file. While it provided some information, it
lacked sufficient detail on how to utilize development tools such as unittest, which
could have been more descriptive.

2. Does the code follow a code standard like black?

 The code did not utilize code black, resulting in a lower rating of 0.

3. Does the code pass pylint?

 The code successfully passed pylint with a rating of 7.52. Therefore, I have assigned
it a rating of 1.

4. Does the code pass flake8?

 While there are some errors present in the code, it is uncertain whether flake8 was
utilized. It is possible that flake8 was implemented but some errors were overlooked.
Considering this uncertainty, we have assigned a rating of 0.5.

5. Is the code documented with pdoc (pydoc) (and can it be generated)?

 The code is documented with pdoc, and it can be regenerated as needed. Therefore,
we have assigned it a rating of 1.

6. Is the code documented with pyreverse (and can it be generated)?

 The code was documented using pyreverse, but unfortunately, we encountered


difficulties generating the documentation. Consequently, we have assigned it a rating
of 0.5.
7. Does the code seem to be well covered (all classes) with unit testing, and can the tests be
executed?

 The code appeared to be well-covered with unit tests; however, there were instances
where certain tests did not execute, resulting in errors. Taking both factors into
account, we have assigned it a rating of 0.5.

8. Does the code has an acceptable level of code coverage, at least above 50%?

 The code achieved a test coverage of 60%, indicating thorough testing and
validation. Therefore, we assign it a rating of 1.

9. Is the game playable with limited issues detected?

 The game is highly playable, with minimal errors detected. Consequently, we are
pleased to give it a rating of 1.

10. Does this seem to be an awesome project that impresses me to some extent.

 The terminal game provided an enjoyable and enriching experience, offering valuable
insights and knowledge. The code structure was commendable, demonstrating a
well-organized approach with comprehensive code coverage. As such, we are
pleased to assign it a rating of 1.

1. Play the game, what are your feeling about the overall quality of
the game?

- The terminal game provided an enjoyable and enriching experience, offering


valuable insights and knowledge. with overall game quality being grate.

2. What do you think of the overall quality of the code and classes?

-the code and class where good quality the coverage percentage
and the pylint rating could have been better

3. Anything more you would like to mention as feedback or


improvement suggestions?

-In reviewing the project structure, I observed that the test


classes were located in a separate folder from the actual classes,
making it challenging to generate coverage reports. Additionally,
there was only one Makefile included, whereas it would have
been beneficial to adhere to the teacher's project structure,
which typically includes two Makefiles: one for setting up the
virtual environment and installing necessary dependencies, and
another for testing code metrics. Furthermore, although the
README.md provided some guidance, a more detailed
README.md would have enhanced clarity and usability. Despite
these observations, overall, the project experience was positive.

You might also like