Add Internship, Application and Item classes

[keanecjy]

Include for data fields and Item list

[shawn-nyk]

The code looks great, thanks for the great effort and for doing this up so swiftly! I've added some questions/suggestions, and apologies if I misunderstood anything. They mostly stem from some concerns / perhaps not fully understanding your implementation. As there may be quite a bit to discuss, perhaps we can go over them during a meeting!

[ZoroarkDarkrai]

I noticed that many of the javadocs used "person" and "address book", should we change it now? or leave it for later?

[orzymandias]

I noticed that many of the javadocs used "person" and "address book", should we change it now? or leave it for later?

Hmm. The dilemma now is that this is just a proof of concept and we may be abstracting common logic down the line and scrapping all these, so overwriting Javadocs now may redundant. The danger is that if the code is kept and the comments are missed in the future. What is the team's opinion on this? @ZoroarkDarkrai @keanecjy @seanjyjy @shawn-nyk

[seanjyjy]

If we are planning to create other classes in replacement of person and address book, I don't think we need to change the Javadoc yet?

[keanecjy]

Yup I think that there isn't a need to concern about javadocs / comments as of now as they can be easily fixed at any point in time. @orzymandias I stopped editing the List portions as I noticed that there were too much code duplication with your pr. Do we plan to either extend an Item class or use generics for our list?

[orzymandias]

Yup I think that there isn't a need to concern about javadocs / comments as of now as they can be easily fixed at any point in time. @orzymandias I stopped editing the List portions as I noticed that there were too much code duplication with your pr. Do we plan to either extend an Item class or use generics for our list?

I agree. I think there is unnecessary duplication for collections, generics is a good idea for collections but one issue is with throwing custom exceptions for different types of items within the generic list. Should we just have DuplicateItemException then something like throw new DuplicateItemException(T.getDuplicateExceptionMsg())?

[keanecjy]

ecessary duplication for collections, generics is a good idea for collections but one issue is with throwing custom exceptions for different types of items within the generic list. Should we just have DuplicateItemException then something like throw new DuplicateItemException(T.getDuplicateExceptionMsg())?

I don't think this works because we are not able to access methods in java generics. I figured since we all are classifying our classes as Item, we can have an Item interface to contain all the methods similar methods like isSameItem and likewise do throw new DuplicateItemException(item.getItemName())?

[orzymandias]

ecessary duplication for collections, generics is a good idea for collections but one issue is with throwing custom exceptions for different types of items within the generic list. Should we just have DuplicateItemException then something like throw new DuplicateItemException(T.getDuplicateExceptionMsg())?

I don't think this works because we are not able to access methods in java generics. I figured since we all are classifying our classes as Item, we can have an Item interface to contain all the methods similar methods like isSameItem and likewise do throw new DuplicateItemException(item.getItemName())?

Sounds good.

[shawn-nyk]

Hmm. The dilemma now is that this is just a proof of concept and we may be abstracting common logic down the line and scrapping all these, so overwriting Javadocs now may redundant. The danger is that if the code is kept and the comments are missed in the future. What is the team's opinion on this? @ZoroarkDarkrai @keanecjy @seanjyjy @shawn-nyk

I agree that overwriting Javadocs now may be redundant, especially because our code can change over time up until the final version. At the same time, I also agree that we may miss them in the future, and doing a one-time run-through of all our code at the end may be very tedious and error-prone. As such, how about we do something like: every time we create new bits of code that require Javadocs, or we modify code that already has Javadocs attached to them, we place a standardized comment, such as TODO: Javadocs above the code we need to write/edit Javadocs for? That way we get the syntax highlighting that IntelliJ provides for the TODO keyword, and we can also search for this standardised comment throughout the code base to hone in on where we'll eventually need to write/edit Javadocs when the time comes. Any thoughts on this?

[seanjyjy]

Hmm. The dilemma now is that this is just a proof of concept and we may be abstracting common logic down the line and scrapping all these, so overwriting Javadocs now may redundant. The danger is that if the code is kept and the comments are missed in the future. What is the team's opinion on this? @ZoroarkDarkrai @keanecjy @seanjyjy @shawn-nyk

I agree that overwriting Javadocs now may be redundant, especially because our code can change over time up until the final version. At the same time, I also agree that we may miss them in the future, and doing a one-time run-through of all our code at the end may be very tedious and error-prone. As such, how about we do something like: every time we create new bits of code that require Javadocs, or we modify code that already has Javadocs attached to them, we place a standardized comment, such as TODO: Javadocs above the code we need to write/edit Javadocs for? That way we get the syntax highlighting that IntelliJ provides for the TODO keyword, and we can also search for this standardised comment throughout the code base to hone in on where we'll eventually need to write/edit Javadocs when the time comes. Any thoughts on this?

I think this is a great idea what do the rest think?

[keanecjy]

Sure, I think this is a solid idea.

[shawn-nyk]

Everything looks great! Perhaps just a few minor edits and I think we're good to merge!

[shawn-nyk]

LGTM!