18-642 Peer Review of Project 6

This is a GROUP assignment.

• Do not start work until all group members have handed in the project being reviewed.
• Do not e-mail, file share, or otherwise exchange the material being reviewed. Do reviews via screen sharing only.
• Do not review code in this peer review. Only review requirements and sequence diagrams. Displaying, reviewing, or discussing code in this peer review is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN!
• This peer review is to identify issues in other student work products. It is NOT a collaborative design discussion. It is NOT a problem solving session. It is NOT a time to make suggestions on HOW to improve other work products. It is a peer review sesision, not a design session. Do NOT discuss deliverables for the NEXT project -- limit peer review materials only to the designated project for this peer review.

Hints/Helpful Links:

• You might find it convenient to have the peer review checklist and peer review results spreadsheet printed or open on another device while doing the review.
• Peer review issue log (Excel) (generally equivalent issue log forms are acceptable). Consider using Google Docs (or another service) to interactively manage the issue log during the review.

Procedure -- Peer Review

Before review session, exchange your best shot at a checklist for each type of artifact being reviewed and agree on which edited or merged checklists to use. You should improve and modify them as makes sense. It is permissible and desirable to use checklists from previous peer reviews as the semester progresses so that your checklist improves over time. Sharing of peer review checklists among students is explicitly permitted.

• Requirements starter checklist
• Sequence Diagram starter checklist

Conduct a peer review of these project materials:

• High Level Requirements -- spend up to 15 minutes per author
  • Select the most complex requirements first until a total of 15 minutes has been spend on them
• Sequence Diagrams -- spend up to 15 minutes per author
  • Randomly select until a total of 15 minutes has been spend on them. If author feels feedback is especially desirable for specific sequence diagrams, those can be prioritized

Take turns in review roles so everyone is leader once and author once per session. (Non-leader/non-author participant is an additional reviewer.)

• Author acts as scribe, recording any issues found in an Issue Log. It is OK for the author to offer issues due to our small group size
• Leader is not the author, and directs attention to the next piece of the artifact being reviewed
• Follow the general method in the peer review lecture and previous exercises to do small pieces at a time as directed by the leader. For example in a statechart review each state and associated arcs one state at a time rather than looking at the whole statechart at once
• Issue rows should have a specific location, a rule, and a description in relevant rows such as (hypothetical example). Note that "SD-5" might be omitted if the entire spreadsheet is for sequence diagram SD-4 and that is stated in the title. In this example "7" is referring to rule #7 of the sequence diagram review checklist. (If you prefer SDR-7 to disambiguate in a review with multiple checklists in play that's fine too.)
  • Location: SD-4 Object TurtleObj
  • Rule: 7
  • Description: Missing precondition

RUBRIC:

• One Acrobat document that is displayable by Canvas. File name: P06_Group##.pdf.
• Document shall be entirely in landscape format, letter size pages.
• Peer review logs shall take substantially the full width of the page with only normal (1" or less, preferably 0.5") page margins on letter size output. Fonts on materials not generated by the peer review spreadsheet shall be no smaller than 16 point.
• First page: all students in group, group number, project number being reviewed, & TA who attended the TA meeting. If any student did not attend the TA meeting, list that student name and say "Did Not Attend TA meeting" next to that name. This information shall be on a separate sheet on the first page of the handin.
• Subsequent pages of the document are the peer review spreadsheets, one spreadsheet per artifact from one author. (Thus, for group of 3 this is a 3 page document if one artifact or artifact set from each author is being reviewed; if two artifacts being reviewed that is 6 pages, etc.)
• Each item in the peer review issue log describes which artifact it is for (for example: Sequence Diagrams #SD-3, ... issue ...)
• Each page clearly identifies the project # being reviewed, the author, and ALL the non-authors for that spreadsheet.
• Issues must be recorded but do NOT need to show resolved on the hand-in. (You should resolve them later.)
• The checklists you used (might be tailored from the starter checklist we provided). Minimum 16 point font.