|
| 1 | +# Report for assignment 3 |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +This is a template for your report. You are free to modify it as needed. |
| 4 | +It is not required to use markdown for your report either, but the report |
| 5 | +has to be delivered in a standard, cross-platform format. |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +## Project |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +Name: |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +URL: |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +One or two sentences describing it |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +## Onboarding experience |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +Did it build and run as documented? |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +See the assignment for details; if everything works out of the box, |
| 20 | +there is no need to write much here. If the first project(s) you picked |
| 21 | +ended up being unsuitable, you can describe the "onboarding experience" |
| 22 | +for each project, along with reason(s) why you changed to a different one. |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +## Complexity |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +1. What are your results for ten complex functions? |
| 28 | + * Did all methods (tools vs. manual count) get the same result? |
| 29 | + * Are the results clear? |
| 30 | +2. Are the functions just complex, or also long? |
| 31 | +3. What is the purpose of the functions? |
| 32 | +4. Are exceptions taken into account in the given measurements? |
| 33 | +5. Is the documentation clear w.r.t. all the possible outcomes? |
| 34 | + |
| 35 | +## Refactoring |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +Plan for refactoring complex code: |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +Estimated impact of refactoring (lower CC, but other drawbacks?). |
| 40 | + |
| 41 | +Carried out refactoring (optional, P+): |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +git diff ... |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +## Coverage |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +### Tools |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +Document your experience in using a "new"/different coverage tool. |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +How well was the tool documented? Was it possible/easy/difficult to |
| 52 | +integrate it with your build environment? |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +### Your own coverage tool |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +Show a patch (or link to a branch) that shows the instrumented code to |
| 57 | +gather coverage measurements. |
| 58 | + |
| 59 | +The patch is probably too long to be copied here, so please add |
| 60 | +the git command that is used to obtain the patch instead: |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +git diff ... |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +What kinds of constructs does your tool support, and how accurate is |
| 65 | +its output? |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +### Evaluation |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +1. How detailed is your coverage measurement? |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +2. What are the limitations of your own tool? |
| 72 | + |
| 73 | +3. Are the results of your tool consistent with existing coverage tools? |
| 74 | + |
| 75 | +## Coverage improvement |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +Show the comments that describe the requirements for the coverage. |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +Report of old coverage: [link] |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +Report of new coverage: [link] |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +Test cases added: |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +git diff ... |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +Number of test cases added: two per team member (P) or at least four (P+). |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | +## Self-assessment: Way of working |
| 90 | + |
| 91 | +Current state according to the Essence standard: ... |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +Was the self-assessment unanimous? Any doubts about certain items? |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +How have you improved so far? |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +Where is potential for improvement? |
| 98 | + |
| 99 | +## Overall experience |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | +What are your main take-aways from this project? What did you learn? |
| 102 | + |
| 103 | +Is there something special you want to mention here? |
0 commit comments