• The product should be delivered as an executable jar file.
• Ideally, the product delivered at v1.4 should be a releasable product. However, in the interest of lowering your workload, we do not penalize if the product is not releasable, as long as the product is acceptance testable.

• The source code should match the executable, and should include the revision history of the source code, as a Git repo.

• The User Guide (UG) of the product should match the proposed v2.0 of the product and in sync with the current version of the product.
• Features not implemented yet should be clearly marked as Coming in v2.0
• Ensure the UG matches the product precisely, as it will be used by peer testers (and any inaccuracy in the content will be considered bugs).

• The Developer Guide (DG) of the product should match the proposed v2.0 of the product and should be in sync with the current version of the product.
• ❗️ The appendix named Instructions for Manual Testing of the Developer Guide should include testing instructions to cover all your major and minor enhancements. There is no need to add testing instructions for existing features if you did not touch them.
  💡 What to include in the appendix Instructions for Manual Testing? This appendix is meant to give some guidance to the tester to chart a path through the features, and provide some important test inputs the tester can copy-paste into the app. There is no need to give a long list of test cases including all possible variations. It is upto the tester to come up with those variations. However, if the instructions are inaccurate or deliberately misses/mis-states information to make testing harder  i.e. annoys the tester, the tester can report it as a bug  (because flaws in developer docs are considered as bugs).
• Ensure the DG matches the product precisely, as it will be used by peer evaluators (and any inaccuracy in the content will be considered bugs).

At the end of the project each student is required to submit a Project Portfolio Page.

• Objective:

  • For you to use  (e.g. in your resume) as a well-documented data point of your SE experience
  • For us to use as a data point to evaluate your,
    • contributions to the project
    • your documentation skills

• Sections to include:

  • Overview: A short overview of your product to provide some context to the reader.

  • Summary of Contributions:

    • Code contributed: Give a link to your code on Project Code Dashboard, which should be https://nuscs2113-ay1819s1.github.io/dashboard/#=undefined&search=githbub_username_in_lower_case (replace githbub_username_in_lower_case with your actual username in lower case e.g., johndoe). This link is also available in the Project List Page -- linked to the icon under your photo.
    • Main feature implemented: A summary of the main feature you implemented
    • Other contributions:
      • Contributions to project management e.g., setting up project tools, managing releases, managing issue tracker etc.
      • Evidence of helping others e.g. responses you posted in our forum, bugs you reported in other team's products,
      • Evidence of technical leadership e.g. sharing useful information in the forum
    • [Optional] Other minor enhancements: If you have other enhancements that you implemented, which are not related to your main feature, you can include it here. If you have written a significant amount of code that can be advertised as a feature by itself, but does not belong to your main feature, you can choose to include it as a part of the optional enhancements.

  • Contributions to the User Guide: Reproduce the parts in the User Guide that you wrote. This can include features you implemented as well as features you propose to implement.
    The purpose of allowing you to include proposed features is to provide you more flexibility to show your documentation skills. e.g. you can bring in a proposed feature just to give you an opportunity to use a UML diagram type not used by the actual features.

  • Contributions to the Developer Guide: Reproduce the parts in the Developer Guide that you wrote. Ensure there is enough content to evaluate your technical documentation skills and UML modelling skills. You can include descriptions of your design/implementations, possible alternatives, pros and cons of alternatives, etc.

  • If you plan to use the PPP in your Resume, you can also include your SE work outside of the module (will not be graded)

• Format:

  • File name: docs/team/githbub_username_in_lower_case.adoc e.g., docs/team/johndoe.adoc

  • Follow the example in the AddressBook-Level4, but ignore the following two lines in it.
    

    • Minor enhancement: added a history command that allows the user to navigate to previous commands using up/down keys.
    • Code contributed: [Functional code] [Test code] {give links to collated code files}

  • 💡 You can use the Asciidoc's include feature to include sections from the developer guide or the user guide in your PPP. Follow the example in the sample.

  • It is assumed that all contents in the PPP were written primarily by you. If any section is written by someone else  e.g. someone else wrote described the feature in the User Guide but you implemented the feature, clearly state that the section was written by someone else  (e.g. Start of Extract [from: User Guide] written by Jane Doe).  Reason: Your writing skills will be evaluated based on the PPP

  • Page limit: If you have more content than the limit given below, shorten (or omit some content) so that you do not exceed the page limit. Having too much content in the PPP will be viewed unfavorably during grading. Note: the page limits given below are after converting to PDF format. The actual amount of content you require is actually less than what these numbers suggest because the HTML → PDF conversion adds a lot of spacing around content.

    Content	Limit
    Overview + Summary of contributions	0.5-1
    Contributions to the User Guide	1-3
    Contributions to the Developer Guide	3-6
    Total	5-10

• Include an updated version of the online UG and DG that match v1.4 executable
• README : Ensure the Ui.png matches the current product
• AboutUs : Ensure the following:
  • Use a suitable profile photo

• Contains a link to each person's Project Portfolio page
• Team member names match full names used by IVLE

• Duration: Strictly (teamSize x 3.5) + 1 minutes  e.g. 19 minutes for a 5-person team. Exceeding this limit will be penalized. The extra minute is for the first speaker to give an overview of the product.

• Target audience: Assume you are giving a demo to a higher-level manager of your company, to brief him/her on the current capabilities of the product. This is the first time they are seeing the new product you developed but they are familiar with the AddressBook-level4 (AB4) product.

• Scope:

  • Each person should demo the enhancements they added. However, it's ok for one member to do all the typing.
  • Subjected to the constraint mentioned in the previous point, as far as possible, organize the demo to present a cohesive picture of the product as a whole, presented in a logical order.  Remember to explain the target user profile and value proposition early in the demo.
  • It is recommended you showcase how the feature improves the user’s life rather than simply describe each feature.
  • No need to cover design/implementation details as the manager is not interested in those details.
  • Mention features you inherited from AB4 only if they are needed to explain your new features.  Reason: existing features will not earn you marks, and the audience is already familiar with AB4 features.

• Structure:

  • Demo the product using the same executable you submitted, on your own laptop, using the TV.
  • It can be a sitting down demo: You'll be demonstrating the features using the TV while sitting down. But you may stand around the TV if you prefer that way.
  • It will be uninterrupted demo: The audience members will not interrupt you during the demo. That means you should finish within the given time.
  • The app should be populated with a significant amount of realistic data at the start.  e.g at least 20 contacts. Trying to demo a product using just 1-2 sample data creates a bad impression.
  • Dress code : The level of formality is up to you, but it is recommended that the whole team dress at the same level. However, do avoid running shorts and flip-flops!

• Optimizing the time:

  • Spend as much time as possible on demonstrating the actual product. Not recommended to use slides (if you do, use them sparingly) or videos or lengthy narrations.
    Avoid skits, re-enactments, dramatizations etc. This is not a sales pitch or an informercial. While you need to show how a user use the product to get value, but you don’t need to act like an imaginary user. For example, [Instead of this] Jim get’s a call from boss. "Ring ring", "hello", "oh hi Jim, can we postpone the meeting?" "Sure". Jim hang up and curses the boss under his breath. Now he starts typing ..etc. [do this] If Jim needs to postpone the meeting, he can type … It’s not that dramatization is bad or we don’t like it. We simply don’t have enough time for it.
    Note that CS2101 demo requirements may differ. Different context → Different requirements.
  • Rehearse the steps well and ensure you can do a smooth demo. Poor quality demos can affect your grade.
  • Don’t waste time repeating things the target audience already knows. e.g. no need to say things like "We are students from NUS, SoC".
  • Bring sufficient amount of sample data and know how to load them to the system. You should not plan to type all the sample data during the demo itself.
  • Plan the demo to be in sync with the impression you want to create. For example, if you are trying to convince that the product is easy to use, show the easiest way to perform a task before you show the full command with all the bells and whistles.
  • Limit the demo to CLI inputs only. Do not explain GUI inputs because they don't earn marks.

Objectives:

• Evaluate your,
  • manual testing skills
  • product evaluation skills
  • effort estimation skills
• Peer-evaluate your
  • product design
  • implementation effort
  • documentation quality

During:

1. Take note of your team to test. It will be given to you by the teaching team (distributed via IVLE gradebook).
2. Download from IVLE all files submitted by the team (i.e. jar file, User Guide, Developer Guide, and Project Portfolio Pages) into an empty folder.
3. [~45 minutes] Test the product and report bugs as described below:

1. [~45 minutes] Evaluate the following aspects. Note down your evaluation in a hard copy (as a backup). Submit via TEAMMATES.

   • A. Cohesiveness of product features []: Do the features fit together and match the stated target user and the value proposition?

     • unable to judge: You are unable to judge this aspect for some reason.
     • low: One of these
       • target user is too general  i.e. wider than AB4
       • target user and/or value proposition is not clear from the user guide
       • features don't seem to fit together for the most part
     • medium: Some features fit together but some don't.
     • high: All features fit together but the features are not very high value to the target user.
     • excellent: The target user is clearly defined (not too general) and almost all new features are of high-value to the target user. i.e. the product is very attractive to the target user.

   • B. Quality of user docs []: Evaluate based on the parts of the user guide written by the person, as reproduced in the project portfolio. Evaluate from an end-user perspective.

     • unable to judge: Less than 1 page worth of UG content written by the student.
     • low: Hard to understand, often inaccurate or missing important information.
     • medium: Needs some effort to understand; some information is missing.
     • high: Mostly easy to follow. Only a few areas need improvements.
     • excellent: Easy to follow and accurate. Just enough information, visuals, examples etc. (not too much either).

   • C. Quality of developer docs []: Evaluate based on the developer docs cited/reproduced in the respective project portfolio page. Evaluate from the perspective of a new developer trying to understand how the features are implemented.

     • unable to judge: One of these
       • no content at all.
       • less than 0.5 pages worth of content.
       • other problems in the document  e.g. looks like included wrong content.
     • low: One of these
       • Very small amount of content (i.e., 0.5 - 1 page).
       • Hardly any use to the reader (i.e., content doesn't make much sense or redundant).
       • Uses ad-hoc diagrams where UML diagrams could have been used instead.
       • Multiple notation errors in UML diagrams.
     • medium: Some diagrams, some descriptions, but does not help the reader that much  e.g. overly complicated diagrams.
     • high: Enough diagrams (at lest two kinds of UML diagrams used) and enough descriptions (about 2 pages worth) but explanations are not always easy to follow.
     • excellent: Easy to follow. Just enough information (not too much). Minimum repetition of content/diagrams. Good use of diagrams to complement text descriptions. Easy to understand diagrams with just enough details rather than very complicated diagrams that are hard to understand.

   • D. Depth of feature []: Evaluate the feature done by the student for difficulty, depth, and completeness. Note: examples given below assumes AB4 did not have the commands edit, undo, and redo.

     • unable to judge: You are unable to judge this aspect for some reason.
     • low : An easy feature  e.g. make the existing find command case insensitive.
     • medium : Moderately difficult feature, barely acceptable implementation  e.g. an edit command that requires the user to type all fields, even the ones that are not being edited.
     • high: One of the below
       • A moderately difficult feature but fully implemented  e.g. an edit command that allows editing any field.
       • A difficult feature with a reasonable implementation but some aspects are not covered  undo/redo command that only allows a single undo/redo.
     • excellent: A difficult feature, all reasonable aspects are fully implemented  undo/redo command that allows multiple undo/redo.

   • E. Amount of work []: Evaluate the amount of work, on a scale of 0 to 30.

     • Consider this PR (history command) as 5 units of effort which means this PR (undo/redo command) is about 15 points of effort. Given that 30 points matches an effort twice as that needed for the undo/redo feature (which was given as an example of an A grade project), we expect most students to be have efforts lower than 20.
     • Consider the main feature only. Exclude GUI inputs, but consider GUI outputs of the feature. Count all implementation/testing/documentation work as mentioned in that person's portfolio page. Also look at the actual code written by the person. We understand that it is not possible to know exactly which part of the code is for the main feature; make a best guess judgement call based on the available info.
     • Do not give a high value just to be nice. If your estimate is wildly inaccurate, it means you are unable to estimate the effort required to implement a feature in a project that you are supposed to know well at this point. You will lose marks if that is the case.

Bug Review Period:

There will be a review period for you to respond to the bug reports you received.

Duration: The review period will start around 1 day after the PE (exact time to be announced) and will last until the following Tuesday midnight.

Bug reviewing is recommended to be done as a team as some of the decisions need team consensus.