Note that project grading is not competitive (not bell curved). CS2113T projects will be assessed separately from CS2113 projects. Given below is the marking scheme.
Total: 45 marks ( 40 individual marks + 5 team marks)
See the sections below for details of how we assess each aspect.
1. Project Grading: Product Design [ 5 marks]
Evaluates:
- how well your features fit together to form a cohesive product
(not how many features or how big/novel/interesting/difficult the features are) - how well it matches the target user
Evaluated by:
- the teaching team (based on product demo and user guide)
- peers from other teams (based on peer testing and user guide)
Admin tP → PE → Grading Instructions for Product Design
Evaluate based on the User Guide and the actual product behavior.
| Criterion | Unable to judge | Low | Medium | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|
target user |
Not specified | Clearly specified and narrowed down appropriately | ||
value proposition |
Not specified | The value to target user is low. App is not worth using | Some small group of target users might find the app worth using | Most of the target users are likely to find the app worth using |
optimized for target user |
Not enough focus for CLI users | Mostly CLI-based, but cumbersome to use most of the time | Feels like a fast typist can be more productive with the app, compared to an equivalent GUI app without a CLI | |
feature-fit |
Many of the features don't fit with others | Most features fit together but a few may be possible misfits | All features fit together to for a cohesive whole |
In addition, feature flaws reported in the PE will be considered when grading this aspect.
Note that 'product design' or 'functionality' are not critical learning outcomes of the tP. Therefore, the bar you need to reach to get full marks will be quite low. For example, the Medium level in the rubric given in the panel above should be enough to achieve full marks. Similarly, only cases of excessive 'feature flaw' bugs will affect the score.
These are considered feature flaws:
The feature does not solve the stated problem of the intended user i.e., the feature is 'incomplete'
Hard-to-test features
Features that don't fit well with the product
Features that are not optimized enough for fast-typists or target users
2. Project Grading: Implementation [ 10 marks]
2A. Code quality
Evaluates: the quality of the parts of the code you claim as written by you
Evaluation method: manual inspection by tutors + automated-analysis by a script
Criteria:
-
At least some evidence of these (see here for more info)
- logging
- exceptions
- assertions
-
No coding standard violations e.g. all boolean variables/methods sounds like booleans. Checkstyle can prevent only some coding standard violations; others need to be checked manually.
-
SLAP is applied at a reasonable level. Long methods or deeply-nested code are symptoms of low-SLAP.
-
No noticeable code duplications i.e. if there multiple blocks of code that vary only in minor ways, try to extract out similarities into one place, especially in test code.
-
Evidence of applying code quality guidelines covered in the module.
2B. Effort
Evaluates: how much value you contributed to the product
Method:
- This is evaluated by peers who tested your product, and tutors.
Admin tP → PE → Question used for Implementation Effort
Consider implementation work only (i.e., exclude testing, documentation, project management etc.)
The typical iP refers to an iP where all the requirements are met at the minimal expectations given.
Use the person's PPP and RepoSense page to evaluate the effort.
- The score could be further moderated by this question answered by team members.
Admin Peer Evaluations → Questions used for Evaluating Implementation Effort
Uses the Equal Share +/- N% scale for the answer
Note: Effort put into non-user-visible implementation work (e.g., major refactorings) can also be counted for this component of grading, but it is upto you to describe that work in your PPP so that evaluators can factor those in.
3. Project Grading: QA [ 10 marks]
3A. Developer Testing:
Evaluates: How well you tested your own feature
Based on:
- functionality bugs in your work found by others during the Practical Exam (PE)
- your test code (note
our expectations for automated testing )
- Expectation Write some automated tests so that we can evaluate your ability to write tests.
🤔 How much testings is enough? We expect you to decide. You learned different types of testing and what they try to achieve. Based on that, you should decide how much of each type is required. Similarly, you can decide to what extent you want to automate tests, depending on the benefits and the effort required.
There is no requirement for a minimum coverage level. Note that in a production environment you are often required to have at least 90% of the code covered by tests. In this project, it can be less. The weaker your tests are, the higher the risk of bugs, which will cost marks if not fixed before the final submission.
These are considered functionality bugs:
Behavior differs from the User Guide
A legitimate user behavior is not handled e.g. incorrect commands, extra parameters
Behavior is not specified and differs from normal expectations e.g. error message does not match the error
3B. System/Acceptance Testing:
Evaluates: How well you can system-test/acceptance-test a product
Based on: bugs you found in the PE. In addition to functionality bugs, you get credit for reporting documentation bugs and feature flaws.
Grading bugs found in the PE
- Of Developer Testing component, based on the bugs found in your code3A and System/Acceptance Testing component, based on the bugs found in others' code3B above, the one you do better will be given a 70% weight and the other a 30% weight so that your total score is driven by your strengths rather than weaknesses.
- Bugs rejected by the dev team, if the rejection is approved by the teaching team, will not affect marks of the tester or the developer.
- The penalty/credit for a bug varies based on the severity of the bug:
severity.High>severity.Medium>severity.Low>severity.VeryLow - The three types (i.e.,
type.FunctionalityBug,type.DocumentationBug,type.FeatureFlaw) are counted for three different grade components. The penalty/credit can vary based on the bug type. Given that you are not told which type has a bigger impact on the grade, always choose the most suitable type for a bug rather than try to choose a type that benefits your grade. - The penalty for a bug is divided equally among assignees.
- Developers are not penalized for duplicate bug reports they received but the testers earn credit for duplicate bug reports they submitted as long as the duplicates are not submitted by the same tester.
- i.e., the same bug reported by many testersObvious bugs earn less credit for the tester and slightly higher penalty for the developer.
- If the team you tested has a low bug count i.e., total bugs found by all testers is low, we will fall back on other means (e.g., performance in PE dry run) to calculate your marks for system/acceptance testing.
- Your marks for developer testing depends on the bug density rather than total bug count. Here's an example:
nbugs found in your feature; it is a big feature consisting of lot of code → 4/5 marksnbugs found in your feature; it is a small feature with a small amount of code → 1/5 marks
- You don't need to find all bugs in the product to get full marks. For example, finding half of the bugs of that product or 4 bugs, whichever the lower, could earn you full marks.
- Excessive incorrect downgrading/rejecting/marking as duplicatesduplicate-flagging, if deemed an attempt to game the system, will be penalized.
4. Project Grading: Documentation [ 10 marks]
Evaluates: your contribution to project documents
Method: Evaluated in two steps.
- Step 1: Evaluate the whole UG and DG. This is evaluated by peers who tested your product, and tutors.
Admin tP → PE → Grading Instructions for User Guide
Evaluate based on fit-for-purpose, from the perspective of a target user.
For reference, the AB3 UG is here.
Admin tP → PE → Grading Instructions for Developer Guide
Evaluate based on fit-for-purpose from the perspective of a new team member trying to understand the product's internal design by reading the DG.
For reference, the AB3 DG is here.
- Step 2: Evaluate how much of that effort can be attributed to you. This is evaluated by team members, and tutors.
Admin Peer Evaluations → Questions used for Evaluating the Contribution to the UG
Admin Peer Evaluations → Questions used for Evaluating the Contribution to the DG
Uses the Equal Share +/- N% scale for the answer
- In addition, UG and DG bugs you received in the PE will be considered for grading this component.
These are considered UG bugs (if they hinder the reader):
Use of visuals
- Not enough visuals e.g., screenshots/diagrams
- The visuals are not well integrated to the explanation
- The visuals are unnecessarily repetitive e.g., same visual repeated with minor changes
Use of examples:
- Not enough or too many examples e.g., sample inputs/outputs
Explanations:
- The explanation is too brief or unnecessarily long.
- The information is hard to understand for the target audience. e.g., using terms the reader might not know
Neatness/correctness:
- looks messy
- not well-formatted
- broken links, other inaccuracies, typos, etc.
- hard to read/understand
- unnecessary repetitions (i.e., hard to see what's similar and what's different)
These are considered DG bugs (if they hinder the reader):
Those given as possible UG bugs ...
These are considered UG bugs (if they hinder the reader):
Use of visuals
- Not enough visuals e.g., screenshots/diagrams
- The visuals are not well integrated to the explanation
- The visuals are unnecessarily repetitive e.g., same visual repeated with minor changes
Use of examples:
- Not enough or too many examples e.g., sample inputs/outputs
Explanations:
- The explanation is too brief or unnecessarily long.
- The information is hard to understand for the target audience. e.g., using terms the reader might not know
Neatness/correctness:
- looks messy
- not well-formatted
- broken links, other inaccuracies, typos, etc.
- hard to read/understand
- unnecessary repetitions (i.e., hard to see what's similar and what's different)
UML diagrams:
- Notation incorrect or not compliant with the notation covered in the module.
- Some other type of diagram used when a UML diagram would have worked just as well.
- The diagram used is not suitable for the purpose it is used.
- The diagram is too complicated.
Code snippets:
- Excessive use of code e.g., a large chunk of code is cited when a smaller extract would have sufficed.
Problems in User Stories. Examples:
- Incorrect format
- All three parts are not present
- The three parts do not match with each other
- Important user stories missing
Problems in NFRs. Examples:
- Not really a Non-Functional Requirement
- Not scoped clearly (i.e., hard to decide when it has been met)
- Not reasonably achievable
- Highly relevant NFRs missing
Problems in Glossary. Examples:
- Unnecessary terms included
- Important terms missing
5. Project Grading: Project Management [ 5 + 5 = 10 marks]
5A. Process:
Evaluates: How well you did in project management related aspects of the project, as an individual and as a team
Based on: tutor/bot observations of project milestones and GitHub data
Grading criteria:
-
Project done iteratively and incrementally (opposite: doing most of the work in one big burst)
-
Milestones reached on time (i.e., the midnight before of the tutorial) (to get a good grade for this aspect, achieve at least 75% of the recommended milestone progress).
-
Good use of GitHub milestones mechanism.
-
Good use of GitHub releases mechanism.
-
Good version control, based on the repo.
-
Reasonable attempt to use the forking workflow at least for the early part of the project.
-
Good task definition, assignment and tracking, based on the issue tracker.
-
Good use of buffers (opposite: everything at the last minute).
5B. Team-tasks:
Evaluates: How much you contributed to team-tasks
Admin tP → Expectations: Examples of team-tasks
Here is a non-exhaustive list of team-tasks:
- Setting up the GitHub team org/repo
- Necessary general code enhancements
- Setting up tools e.g., GitHub, Gradle
- Maintaining the issue tracker
- Release management
- Updating user/developer docs that are not specific to a feature e.g. documenting the target user profile
- Incorporating more useful tools/libraries/frameworks into the product or the project workflow (e.g. automate more aspects of the project workflow using a GitHub plugin)
Based on: peer evaluations, tutor observations
Grading criteria: Do these to earn full marks.
- Do close to an equal share of the team tasks (you can earn bonus marks by doing more than an equal share).
- Merge code in at least four of weeks 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12