This site is from a past semester! The current version will be here when the new semester starts.

iP: Week 3iP: Week 5


iP: Week 4

  1. Add Increments as branches: Level-5, A-CodeQuality, A-AbstractClasses, A-Packages
  2. Use GFMD in the PR description
  3. Review some peer PRs counted for participation

1 Add Increments as branches: Level-5, A-CodeQuality, A-AbstractClasses, A-Packages

  • Do each increment as a Git branch. Here is an example:
    • Start a branch named branch-{increment ID} (e.g. branch-Level-5). You are recommended to have multiple commits in that branch. Follow the branch naming convention exactly or else our gradings scripts might miss your branch.
    • After the increment is ready, merge the branch-Level-5 back on to master, without a fast-forward so that git creates a separate commit for the merge. git tag that merge commit as Level-5.
    • Push the branch to your fork so that the grading script can detect it. As before, push the tag as well.
    • Advanced git users: do not delete the branch after merging.
Duke Level-5: Handle Errors
Duke A-CodeQuality: Improve Code Quality
Duke A-AbstractClasses: Use Abstract Classes
Duke A-Packages: Organize into Packages

2 Use GFMD in the PR description

  • GitHub Flavored Markdown (and Markdown in general) is useful in many places when using GitHub e.g., issue tracker, PR reviews, writing documentation. The aim of this task is to ensure that you are sufficiently familiar with the GFMD syntax.
  • Requirements: Update click on the the ... icon on the top right corner of the previous description and choose Edit(how?) the description of the iP PR you created earlier so that it contains the following GFMD elements:
    1. a heading
    2. a bullet list
    3. a numbered list
    4. a fenced code block (with syntax highlighting)
    5. a task list
    6. an emoji
    7. a blockquote
    8. a hyper link
    9. inline code
    10. some text formatting: bold, italic, stikethrough etc.

Here is an example:

DukePro

“Your mind is for having ideas, not holding them.” – David Allen (source)

DukePro frees your mind of having to remember things you need to do. It's,

  • text-based
  • easy to learn
  • FAST SUPER FAST to use

All you need to do is,

  1. download it from here.
  2. double-click it.
  3. add your tasks.
  4. let it manage your tasks for you 😉

And it is FREE!

Features:

  • Managing tasks
  • Managing deadlines (coming soon)
  • Reminders (coming soon)

If you Java programmer, you can use it to practice Java too. Here's the main method:

public class Main {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Application.launch(MainApp.class, args);
    }
}

If you wish, you may write the PR description to be very similar to the example given above -- as the goal here is to demonstrate your mastery of the GFMD syntax (not ad writing skills).

3 Review some peer PRs counted for participation

Please wait till Mon, Aug 30th to start this task, to give others a few extra days to create the PR if they haven't done so yet.

This task is worth 2x2=4 participtaion points.

  • Learn how you should review PRs in this task:
Video

  • Step 1 Note these additional guidelines:

    • Read the Best practices for reviewing PRs @SE-EDU/guides. You are expected to follow all of them.
    • Make sure you add 'review comments' (not regular comments) as only those are counted for participation. See step 4 in the panel above to find how to add 'review comments'.
    • If the PR has received some review comments already, feel free to confirm/complement/question those comments in your review. Also, look for things the previous reviewers may have missed.
    • At the end of the review, choose Comment (i.e., not Approve or Request changes)

  • Step 2 Do the first PR review as follows.

    • Give comment on coding standard related issues only.
      Review comments don't always have to be about problems in the code. Other things you can do:
      • complement the author on not making a common mistake
      • ask questions
      • suggest alternatives
    • The review allocation is given in the panel below.

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 review the Backup PR to review provided in the allocation table. Failing both, pick a PR at random to review.

  • Step 3 Do the second PR review as follows.
    • Comment on other code quality guidelines (see the sections on Naming and Readability in this textbook chapter) you have learned so far. It's optional to comment on coding standard violations in this PR review.
    • The review allocation is given in the panel below.

If the allocated PR is not suitable, use the same strategy as before to find an alternative PR to review.

  • Step 4 [When you receive reviews for your own PR] 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 these guidelines, do not get into arguments with PR reviewers/authors.


iP: Week 3iP: Week 5