Feedback Part3

Feedback Part3

Code base of prototype [1 Satisfactory]

You finished less than half half of the project. While the code looks clean.It would be better to have different packages for storing model and view classes. Also, I couldn’t run your code. Please fix this.

Tangible demo [1 Good]

The application is demonstrable and clear to use.

Code documentation [1 Good]

You shouldn’t add “R” classes to your javadoc file. You can simply avoid this, see this link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10354716/how-to-remove-r-java-from-javadoc

Documentation is consistent with code, but there is not enough description for most methods. You need to give a clear description about the packages, classes, methods, params and return values.

Test cases [1 Satisfactory]

You have some tests but not enough to satify. Also I couldn’t run the test part. Please fix this.

OOD [1 Good]

The UML diagram has been improved, but there are still some flaws in the diagram. You should also add some labels and notes for your classes such as Robosherlock list fragment, since no methods and attributes are included in the diagram; so that makes it hard to find the roles and relations.

Release planning [1 Excellent]

The release planning is clear.

Addressing feedback [1 Excellent]

All feedback from part 2 has been addressed properly.

Summary

7/11