The goal for this round of reviews is to discuss the most significant modifications made to each project, and how these modifications improved the implementation of Tweeter. We will review three projects in each class. First, the project developers will describe the major changes they made, and why. Then two or three other students will offer their perspective on the changes.
You should spend about 10-15 minutes to describe two or three of the most significant changes you made in Project 2. For each change, first describe what you did for Project 1, along with the problems that motivated your changes. Then describe the changes you made for Project 2, and why they are an improvement. If there are still problems with the version from Project 2, describe those along with any ideas you have for how they might be fixed.
Your challenge as presenters is to provide useful information even to class members who have not read your project. The best way to accomplish this is to be very specific: show code samples or API summaries from Project 1, along with the corresponding code/APIs from Project 2. Summary statistics may also be useful, such as "we reduced the total number of catch statements from X to Y." In making your presentation, assume that the audience has not looked at any of your code. Try to tie your changes back to overall class themes or other big ideas about software development.
You must read over the relevant code before class using the issue on
cs190codereview.appspot.com.
First look at the changes file in order to learn about the
major changes. Then read the relevant code and compare the versions
from Project 1 and Project 2. Come to class prepared to address the
following issues:
Your comments will be most useful if they are specific (e.g., with examples from the implementation?). Try to formulate your review so that it can be appreciated even by students who have not read the code. If it helps, you can plug in your laptop to display examples.
For this round of reviews you do not need to write an online code review, though you are welcome to do so if you wish. If you do create an online code review, please don't publish it until after the in-class discussion.
Here is the schedule for this round of reviews. In this round, each student will review one other project.
| Date | Presenters | Reviewers |
| Friday, May 15 | Burke, Rygaard | Huang, Zhang |
| Diab, Platias | Chan, Chang, Abuzaid | |
| Deng, Safreno | Guo, Jansson | |
| Monday, May 18 | Abuzaid, Huang | Safreno, Diab |
| Chang, Ulrich, Zhang | Speiser, Cook | |
| Li, Puyat | Burke, Marks | |
| Wednesday, May 20 | Cook, Marks | Puyat, Rygaard |
| Chan, Guo | Ulrich, Platias | |
| Jansson, Speiser | Li, Deng |
Everyone should bring their laptop to class for the code reviews, so that you can browse the code online while we are discussing it.