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)
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
Violations of given project constraints
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.
- The score could be further moderated by this question answered by team members.
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)
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 the , 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 bug 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, provided the duplicates are not submitted by the same tester.
- 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/ , 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.
- Step 2: Evaluate how much of that effort can be attributed to you. This is evaluated by team members, and tutors.
- 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 target user for the product and/or the value proposition is not specified clearly.
- 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):
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/grading-script observations of project milestones and GitHub data
Grading criteria:
Project done iteratively and incrementally (opposite: doing most of the work in one big burst)
Project tasks done on time (to get a good grade for this aspect, finish at least 75% of the tasks by the deadline).
Good use of these GitHub mechanisms:
- milestones
- releases
- issue tracker (with good task definition, assignment, and tracking)
- PRs, and PR reviews
Good version control, based on the repo.
Reasonable attempt to use the forking workflow at least for the early part of the project.
Good use of buffers (opposite: everything at the last minute).
5B. Team-tasks:
Evaluates: How much you contributed to team-tasks
Based on: peer evaluations, tutor observations
Grading criteria: Do the following to get a good grade for this aspect:
- Do close to an equal share of the team tasks.
- Have your code merged in at least four of weeks 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12