Grades

Sprint 4

Requirements Specification 5

Mockups & Storyboard 5

Documentation & Deployment 10

Codebase 35

Tests 20

Meetings and Demos 10

Wildcard 15

TOTAL 100

• Requirements specification and storyboard remained stable, compared to the previous sprint.

• The mockups was improved with screenshots of the final version of the application.

• Nice and simple user manual with screenshots.

• Administrator documentation could be more detailed, including how to install the database, for example.

• Minor inconsistencies in file naming. For example, PastMaterialScraper.py does not start with lowercase, like most of the others.

• Code is properly documented, and although does not follow standards to auto-generate project documentation, it describes the parameters and returned objects.

• High test coverage: 89%.

• The user interface is clean and intuitive.

• The application seems to be working as expected.

Sprint 3

Requirements Specification 5

UI Navigation 5

Detailed Design 10

Codebase 35

Tests 20

Meetings and Demos 9

Wildcard 13

TOTAL 97

• The requirements and UI mockups remained stable, since there were no substantial errors or inconsistencies found in the previous sprint.

• The code is organized and commented properly.

• The UML diagrams addressed the feedback provided in the previous sprint.

• The visualization of the results is presented as a zoomable timeline, and a network.

• The network visualization is not integrated yet with real data. Additionally, the team may be force to drop this visualization due to time constraints.

• The prototype is integrated with the documents in the backend, and produce reasonable snippets.

• The code is properly documented and organized.

• The code matches the design diagrams.

• A few tests for edge cases have been added.

• The team is using Travis for CI.

• The team keeps a good documentation for meetings.

• The issues have been assigned and closed properly.

• Two members (Gregory and Christopher) of the team have not been committing code as frequently as other members. The reason seems to be that they are implementing pair-programming. Nevertheless, they were advised to commit also from the partner account.

• The ingestion system needs to be integrated.

• Eleni suggested some changes in the UI.

Sprint 2

Requirements Specification 5

UI Navigation 20

Detailed Design 15

Codebase 27

Tests 8

Meetings and Demos 10

Wildcard 5

TOTAL 90

• Minor adjustments were applied to the requirements specification as suggested in the feedback for the previous sprint.

• The UI mockups remained stable.

• The UML diagrams addressed the feedback provided in the previous sprint.

• The visualization of the results is presented as a zoomable timeline.

• The project needs to integrate search on actual documents in the back-end.

• A prototype has been implemented with real data that produces seemingly good results.

• The code is properly documented and organized.

• A few classes lack documentation.

• The code implemented does not seem to correspond to the designed system (UML diagrams).

• The tests check for typical cases, but does not consider edge cases (for example, invalid input).

• The team keeps a good documentation for meetings.

• The issues have been assigned and closed properly.

Sprint 1

Requirements Specification 20

UI Navigation 15

High-Level Design 15

Release Planning 15

Project Overview 15

Meetings and Demos 5

Wildcard 5

TOTAL 90

• The description is clear, and the glossary provides the definition of most of the key terms in the project.

• The glossary does not include what a GFC is.

• The user stories cover the main functionalities of the search application.

• The user stories are grouped by features.

• US.10 could be rephrased, because I think “guide through a complex search” is not accurate.

• The design diagram follow the design of typical single page web applications.

• The components and classes have a few minor inconsistencies regarding the packages and notation.

• The storyboard is easy to follow and presents an intuitive interface.

• The release plan only considers the next sprint.

• The tasks in sprint 2 is reasonable, and the tasks have been assigned.

• Meetings are documented properly.

• Issues have to be divided (NLP is too big). Issues have not been assigned.