Iteration 4: Code Quality

Deadline

Always at 23.59 on the same day as your TA session (Except if another deadline has been agreed with the TA).

Consult the deadline for your class on the delivery plan.

Learning Goals

The learning goals of this week are twofold: to analyze and refactor your current code base to clean up at least two methods so they adhere to Robert Martin's (and Henrik Bærbak's) properties of clean code; and to use the clean code template to ensure completeness of analysis as well as document it.

Kata

Spend the first 15-20 minutes of the class in plenum discussing...

Consider this HotStone endOfTurn() implementation, and find examples of Clean Code principles that are violated.

Time permitting, suggest ways to refactor the code to become more clean.

Exercise

Code Clean Up

Choose two complex aspects (a complex method, or a feature coverede by a small set of methods) from your current HotStone implementation and for each first analyze it in terms of the Clean Code template, and next refactor it so it adheres as best as possible to the Clean Code properties. (endTurn(), attackHero() and attackCard() methods are likely candidates).

Refactor your code base on feature branch "iteration4".

Ensure that you have no items on your backlog before submitting this week. That is, all functional requirements on AlphaStone, BetaStone, GammaStone, and DeltaStone must now be fulfilled by your implementation!

Deliveries:

Document your clean code analysis by following the requirements defined in the iteration4 hand-in template (pdf) (LaTeX source). Links to the Clean Code template (excel, pdf) for documentation.
Create one approximately 5-8 minutes long screencasts with audio narration that demonstrates a method clean up to achieve one or several clean code properties. The screencast must be structured with
1. Intro: State your names and group name
2. Short explanation of what clean code property that your method does NOT have, and outline what refactoring you will do to achieve it.
3. Do the refactoring, explaining what you do as you go along.
4. Conclude and argue how the code has become more clean.
(Note: it is not a screen cast of the refactoring of the full method; it is like one of my screencasts in which I focus on one or a couple of clean code property and handle that.)

The method that is it the focus of the screencast may of course be the same as one of the two that are documented in the report.

Evaluation criteria

Your submission is evaluated against the learning goals and adherence to the submission guidelines. The grading is explained in Grading Guidelines. The TAs will use the Iteration 4 Grade sheet to evaluate your submission.

Learning Goal	Assessment parameters
Submission	Git repository contains merge request associated with branch iteration4. Git repository is not public! Required artefacts (report, screencasts, backlog) must all be present. The quality of screencast (video, audio) is OK.
Clean Code Analysis	The analysis of the choosen methods are correct, and the clean code templates are correctly filled for each property. Argumentation is concise and correct.
Refactoring	Refactoring is made to only clean up the properties mentioned. The screencast narration explains and refers to relevant clean code properties. All code changes are indeed refactoring changes (exact same behaviour before and after code changes). Test cases are run frequently to ensure small steps and no defects are introduced.