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. Use GFMD in the PR description
  2. Review some peer PRs
  3. Learn from others (optional)
  4. Add Increments as branches: A-CheckStyle, Level-10, A-Varargs

Mac users: Ensure you have followed the advisory given here.

1 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 the description of the iP PR you created earlier (do not add a new comment) 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).

2 Review some peer PRs

Please wait till Mon, Jan 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 participation 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, review another PR allocated to another student in your own tutorial but not in your team.

Tip for future reference: GitHub allows you to filter PRs/Issues using various criteria such as author:AuthorUsername (example -- see the filters text box in the target page).

Alternatively, you can use PR labels (if any) to filter PRs/Issues.

FAQ: How many comments should I add? Answer: Depends on the code being reviewed but we expect most PRs would warrant at least 4-5 comments. If the PR is huge, you can stop when you think you've put in a fair amount of time on the job (~15 minutes) and added enough comments for the PR author to receive some value.

  • Step 3 Do the second PR review as follows.
    • Comment on other code quality guidelines (see the section Naming 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.

3 Learn from others (optional)

  • You can use the iP Code Dashboard to view others' iP code, using the Links → iP Code Dashboard item in the top navigation menu of this module website. Click on the  icon corresponding to a student name to see the code written by that person. We encourage you to read others’ code and learn from them. If you adopt solutions from others (also encouraged), please follow our reuse policy.

4 Add Increments as branches: A-CheckStyle, Level-10, A-Varargs

Duke A-CheckStyle: Use CheckStyle optional
Duke Level-10: GUI
  • Note that you no longer need to keep the text-based UI after adding a GUI. Similarly, there is no need to use the I/O redirection style automated testing anymore (that technique is suited for text UIs only).
Duke A-Varargs: Use Varargs if-applicable


iP: Week 3iP: Week 5