Project Review

[AndrejicDanica]

1. General

1.1. How creative is the project? (0: I've seen this on Youtube, 1:
not creative 2: average, 3: creative, 4: very creative, 5: wow!)
3

1.2. How difficult was it to implement the project? (0: no
challenge, 1: very easy, 2: easy, 3: fair, 4: complex, 5: insane)
4

1.3. List 3 positive aspects of the project. Motivate your
selection.

1. The application is intuitive, making it easy to navigate and interact with.
2. The code is well written and clean.
3. The program architecture is well structured with a lot of classes, it is adequately subdivided, making the code more readable.

1.4. List 3 negative aspects of the project. Motivate your
selection.

1. The type of input from the user are few. It could be improved by letting users pick different type or terrain etc.
2. Using buttons instead of symbols for modifying the cursor and downloading the map would make the interface more intuitive.
3. The cursors size is not visible. Hence, it is difficult to understand how big or small it is.

2. Programming techniques

2.1. Evaluate how well 5 programming techniques we learned
throughout the course were adopted in the project. Assign a mark
from 0 to 5 to each technique, where 0 means completely incorrect
usage and 5 means perfect usage.

1. Try-Catch blocks: 5
2. Overriding: 5
3. Collection: 4
4. Multithreading: 5
5. Optionals: 4

3. Git repository

3.1. How appropriate is the .gitignore file of the project? (0:
missing, 1: very bad, 2: bad 3: average, 4: good, 5: very good)
5

3.2. How appropriate is the README.md file of the project? (0:
missing, 1: very bad, 2: bad 3: average, 4: good, 5: very good)
4

4. Maven

4.1. Can you compile the project via Maven? (0: no, 1: yes, but...,
2: yes)
2

4.2. Can you clean the project via Maven? (0: no, 1: yes, but..., 2:
yes)
2

4.3. Can you run the project via Maven? Check README.md on how to
run the project. (0: no, 1: yes, but..., 2: yes)
2

4.4. Are the project's dependencies appropriately configured in
pom.xml? (0: no, 1: some, 2: yes)
2

4.5. Are all Maven plugins appropriately configured in pom.xml? (0:
no, 1: some, 2: yes)
2

4.6. Does the project adopt Maven's standard directory layout? (0:
no, 1: yes, but..., 2: yes)
2

5. Testing

5.1. Are all tests passing? Run mvn test. (0: no, 1: yes, but..., 2:
yes)
2

5.2. How well do the tests cover the code? (0: no tests, 1: no
important method, 2: some important methods, 3: most important
methods, 4: all important methods, 5: 100% test coverage)
4

5.3. Do the tests actually verify the expected behavior of the
program? (0: no tests, 1: useless tests, 2: most don't, 3: some do,
some don't, 4: most do, 5: awesome tests)
4

5.4. How well can you understand what the tests are supposed to
verify? (0: no tests, 1: what is going on?, 2: most are not
understandable, 3: some are understandable, some aren't, 4: most are
understandable, 5: all test are understandable)
4

6. Documentation

6.1. How understandable is the Javadoc written for classes, fields
and methods of the program? (0: no documentation, 1: very poor, 2:
poor, 3: average, 4: good, 5: awesome)
4

6.2. How useful is the Javadoc written for classes, fields and
methods of the program? (0: no documentation, 1: irrelevant, 2:
little utility, 3: average, 4: useful, 5: very useful)
4

6.3. Can you generate documentation files for this project? Run mvn
javadoc:javadoc. (0: no, 1: yes, but..., 2: yes)
2

6.4. How adequate are the non-javadoc comments written throughout
the code? (0: mostly inadequate, 1: average, 2: mostly adequate, 3:
awesome)
2

7. Code quality

7.1. Is the code style adopted throughout the project consistent?
Consider how whitespace is represented (spaces or tabs), tab size,
naming conventions for classes, methods and variables, indentation,
braces usage, line width. See Google Java Style Guide as an example
of code style guidelines. (0: no, 1: yes, but..., 2: yes)
2

7.2. How would you rate the project in terms of code duplication?
(0: a lot of duplication, 1: some duplication, 2: barely any
duplication, 3: no code duplication / only justifiable duplication)
3

7.3. How easy it is to understand how the program works by looking
at the source code? (0: mostly hard to understand, 1: some fragments
are hard to follow, 2: not hard, but not easy, 3: easy to
understand)
2

7.4. Is the program excessively inefficient? (0: most methods, 1:
many methods, 2: few methods, 3: almost no method)
3

7.5. Does the program crash unexpectedly (e.g. by an uncaught
exception)?3 (0: all the time, 1: rarely, 2: it happened once, 3:
never)
3