Project 3: Part A + Part B

Part A: Our team was part of the Atari division. Our division leader and team leaders communicated well to create a design document and assign roles for everyone. Our team chose to deal with the logistics section which was about the bricks not working properly and the score. Our teams task were labeled L4-L7 and 3 our of the 4 tasks had two people assigned to them. The division leader kept us updated at all times with updates on the project.

Part B: I was working on the issue L6 which was about showing game over screen when the pieces reached the top. This ended up being solved by another teams commit. Our team was having issues with our tasks being solved by other teams commits and branches. The team members who had this happen ended up helping the other teammates with their issues.

Project 2: Part A + Part B

Part A: Vincent was selected as the team lead for this project and he was responsible for the communication and partitioning the work. The team was divided into the task of the search list and we all linked up well in the design document, so we were always available for any questions.We used to when2meet to get the times when everyone would be available for meetings which worked well like in project 1. Once everyone knew their roles in the design document everything began to get going. In the design document I was responsible for the implementation details and the input/output samples.

Part B: For part b of the project there was no issues with getting the design document from team 1 and communicating with them. We were in a group chat with their members so there was always a swift response with any problems we had. There were some issues with one of the classes being an interface which we resolved with their teams consent. Like in part A the work was split up so that everyone would have something to do which would make the burden of work diminish. We did end up having issues with our repository and getting everything to compile properly as well as with the test to work. Eventually the issues were sort out and the code merging was smooth. Lastly on the flip side with team 3 and our design document we answered their questions when they had them which went smoothly, Vincent handled that communication and would ask the group in our chat if we had any thoughts.

Project 1: Unit Testing

The first part of the project was completed in time by our team (team 2) and we completed all that was asked in the instructions. Our team lead is Henry who was the main one setting up the meetings and coordinating the group members. Vee is the documentation handler and Odonchimeg created the project board on github. Everyone else in the group had to take care of their tests and help out whenever it was needed. I did offer to help with documentation or wiki but Vee and Henry did a great job on their own.

Some conflicts we had in the beginning was regarding communication and meeting times. At first there were meetings were only a couple members we present so there had to be a second zoom meeting later in the day which was tedious. Eventually we used when2meet to schedule times when everyone could be present which led to the second week meeting containing everyone. On teams everyone was responsive and we found that a group chat worked better for fast communication than the teams chat which we preferred to use for links and announcements.

For me personally the coding and unit testing aspect of this project went smooth with me installing all the extensions on VS Code and they all worked properly with the cloned repo from the groups github. There was some issues in getting VS Code to recognize my code as unit testing code and when I tried to run the test locally I would get an message saying something along the lines of “No test could find this file” but that was resolved. Towards the end with the merging into main there was an issue with my branch and Vincent’s branch because we both did methods from the DynamicArray data structure and there was an issue in the naming of the member variable used that led to duplicate code, but this issue was resolved by our team lead Henry.

Assignment 2

For this assignment we were meant to clone our repository to our local device and start committing changes to the remote one. The coding aspect of this assignment was the most difficult, all the git functions and commands I understand and can use and also the aspect of GitHub. The code that we were meant to do was not difficult in the sense of it being complicated I have coded linked list from scratch before in previous classes but they have always been the literal one data structure in which I struggle the most and fail to grasp (going to try to change this). So for this I wish that the instructions were more clear and lengthy because a lot of times I feel like they just left a lot for interpretation by me which was bad on this occasion because of my struggles with linked lists in general. My implementation was definitely wrong but I grasped the git concepts well. This is certainly not a good example of my coding abilities. I know for sure later in the course and in our groups I will be able to write actual good code.

Assignment 1

Assignment 1 was straight forward for the tasks that we were supposed to do. Joining teams and posting/replying was working well and did not have any issues. Same thing for joining the github organization account as I already had a github account connected with my DePaul email. The biggest difficulty was getting Java to work in VS Code, I downloaded a newer version and I started having issues with it giving me errors for no reason. There might be an issue with paths and the JDK but after googling around for an answer and having no luck I just decided to use Eclipse which I knew would work. Lastly I feel optimistic about this course and I am really looking forward towards the collaboration aspect of it.