Group 19 Lab 8

1. Group 19 Lab 8 Michael Vernon Szlamowicz Evan Fillman Mark Rawls Robert Pricope

2. Overview • Report on the inspection • The original inspection schedule • The assignments given to each group member. • The checklists that were used. • The actual effort expended • The questions about the implementation • Written versions of the answers to the questions • The results of each inspection phase • The result of the rework effort • Management report • Summary • Questions

3. Inspection Report • Original Inspection Schedule • Phase 1 • Phase 2 • Phase 3 • Assignments to Each group member • Evan: Phase 1 • Mike: Phase 2 • Everyone: Phase 3

4. Inspection Checklists: Phase 1 • Internal documentation • Internal documentation follows standard practice (clear, concise, relevant, &c.) • Any non obvious piece of code is explained • Comment header for most methods; specify pre- and post-conditions (as appropriate) • Loop invariants where appropriate • Consistency • Documents requirements as appropriate • Comments should be understandable to observer with minimal understanding of system • Implement C# comments where appropriate (///) • Source-code layout • The source code is well formatted and readable • Tabs and white space are consistent (good indenting practices) • Methods are ordered logically

5. Inspection Checklist: Phase 2 • Naming conventions • Naming follows the C# naming convention • Naming is meaningful • Naming is consistent • Check: Namespaces, Classes, Methods, Variables • Object oriented practices • Encapsulation / Information hiding (don't leak control where it isn't needed) • Good OO design (not a single massive class, and not 30 smaller ones either) • Code is extensible (e.g., can add ability to connect to multiple robots without major restructuring) • Code is robust (e.g., Communication Protocol can change and effect is isolated) • Programming style • Methods of reasonable length (say < 2^16 bytes, which is Java's limit) • Uses C# libraries to full effect (no need to reinvent the wheel) • Follows standard C# idioms (e.g., foreach instead of god-awful enumerators) • Standard practices, such as keeping data private, using constants instead of hard-wired numbers, writing a conditional statement as if(const == var), and so forth. • Error handling done correctly (catch exceptions that can be handled and handle them) • Cohesiveness and coherence are appropriate • Effective Looping and control structures • Comment at the end of long block statement, to effect of say } // End of file processing • Any other deficiencies (I don't claim to have been exhaustive; indeed, style guides can be quite long and cumbersome, to say nothing of arbitrariness).

6. Inspection Checklist: Phase 3 • Check requirements • Do we fulfill all of the requirements in the SRS • Do we fulfill the requirements correctly • GUI Callbacks • All appropriate events registered & handled correctly • Socket Communications • Connection established, can disconnect, handle exceptions, &ca.

7. Questions and Answers • Mike: • 1) Does the scripting system adhere to good design guidelines such as information hiding? • 2) Why do we even need a message generator class? • 3) Should we worry about parsing commands before they are added to the listBox for the script? • Robert: • 1) How is information hiding implemented when every method of the Log class is public? • 2) Where in the code is the actual file path that the StreamWriter uses • Mark: • 1) Are all events handled? • 2) Does the GUI behave counter-intuitively to user expectations? • 3) Is the program thread-safe? • Evan: • 1) Does the IR sensor display actually help the end user? • 2) Are there any provisions such a thread priority to ensure that movement calls go through first • 3) Are exceptions handled well?

8. Results of the Inspection • Phase 1 • Bad commenting • Reorder some methods • Phase 2 • Inconsistent Naming Conventions • Duplicated Functions • Generally Good Design • Phase 3 • Awesomeness

9. Results of the Rework Effort • We added a plethora of comments in c# style • We aligned the code more logically • We refractored our method names/ gui objects to be standardized

10. Management Report

11. Summary • Report on the inspection • The original inspection schedule • The assignments given to each group member. • The checklists that were used. • The actual effort expended • The questions about the implementation • Written versions of the answers to the questions • The results of each inspection phase • The result of the rework effort • Management report • Summary • Questions

12. Questions ============**