Skip to content

Commit f50ba16

Browse files
docs: Add report template (#2)
- Adds the report template as is provided on canvas to the repository.
1 parent 1102e91 commit f50ba16

1 file changed

Lines changed: 103 additions & 0 deletions

File tree

report.md

Lines changed: 103 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
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 five 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

Comments
 (0)