1.0 Preparation
Review Contacts
Tyler Wolff, tylerwolff@gmail.com Scheller Sanchez, scheller.sanchez@gmail.com
Requirements for Review
- Javadoc, QA tools
- Test Suite
- Runs for UH Manoa Library
- Usability
Design Aspects for Review
- Class structure
- Test Suite Competence
- Extendability
- Exception Handling
- Usability
Review Assignments
- Kim - Review our test suite for completeness (TestDueDatesGold.java, TestLibraryVault.java).
- Ancheta - Review our test suite for completeness (TestDueDatesGold.java, TestLibraryVault.java).
- Du - Review overall design structure (All classes except test classes).
- Okada - Review overall design structure (All classes except test classes).
- Zhou - Review all Javadoc/other documentation (For all classes).
- West - Review for code optimization (For all classes).
NOTE: In addition, may comment on overall program problems they find.
Review Due Date
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 1:29 PM
2.0 Results
Review Statistics
| Type | Number |
| Critical | 5 |
| Severe | 3 |
| Moderate | 4 |
| Minor | 7 |
Generated Issues
| Issue | Summary |
| 1 | parse command line arguments |
| 2 | take out hard coded data in test cases |
| 3 | take out id |
| 4 | Create user friendly exception handling |
| 5 | Alter main method to work for multiple libraries |
| 6 | should test one valid/one null login to library |
| 7 | Add parameter descriptions in LibraryVault constructor |
| 8 | Rename project in eclipse to 'DueDates' |
| 9 | Make valid test cases for LibraryVault class |
| 10 | Format due date info more clearly |
| 11 | Simplify LibraryVault object creation |
| 12 | Change indentation for login method |
| 13 | Change name of TestDueDatesGold class |
| 14 | change comment in dist.build.xml for duedates |
| 15 | Check login parameters for LibraryVault, extendability |
| 16 | Change project name in build.xml file |
Invalid Comments
Many of the comments from the review discussed good designs in the code already so those were not included in these results. In addition, many of the same comments were repeated by different reviewers. Those were only counted once in the result list.
