Skip to content

iteration-02-review.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
48 lines (25 loc) · 5.02 KB

iteration-02-review.md

File metadata and controls

48 lines (25 loc) · 5.02 KB
Raw

CheaprEats (the Soupsons)

Iteration 02 - Review & Retrospect

  • When: 31 October 2021
  • Where: Online via Discord Voice Channel

Process - Reflection

Q1. Decisions that turned out well

  • We scheduled weekly meetings with our partner where we would debrief on what was done the prior week and what would be the goal of the current week. Having the weekly feedback from our partner on what they liked and what they wanted to be changed allowed us to deliver the product the way they wanted it. Having weekly meetings also kept us on top of things as we were assigned a revision or a new task from our partner every week.

  • We also scheduled weekly meetings for the division of work and to make sure if anyone had any questions we could clarify so everyone is on the same page. This helped to make sure no one would be behind or lost and so we could assign work depending on the skill set of individuals so that we could maximize productivity.

  • We decided to implement pair programming techniques to work on the tasks. This made it so each person within the pair had someone they could immediately approach if there were any questions and if one member had some experience they could help the other member get up to speed. This also ensured that both members would understand the task at hand and if a similar type of task were to be issued in the future there would be two people who would be a good fit for the task.

  • We used Discord for organizing information related to the CSC301 course materials and for discussion among us. For communication with our partner we used Microsoft Teams and Jira. This separation of communication platforms helped us to keep organized since we would know where to look for specific things. This also added a hierarchy as discord would be the first place to ask questions. If none of our teammates could answer then we would forward the question to Microsoft Teams where we would ask our partner for their opinion.

Q2. Decisions that did not turn out as well as we hoped

  • We did not inform our partner of the deadlines for this course, instead following the pace that our partner decided for us. This ended up with us not producing a minimum viable product yet for deliverable 2.

  • We scheduled our team meetings on the same day as our meetings with our partner. This was not effective as the team meetings were meant for us to discuss as a group on any problems or questions we had and could make sure everyone was on the same page. But as the tasks from our partners are assigned the same day, none of us had the time to digest and work on them yet so none of us would have any inquiries to discuss about.

  • Deciding to meet during the mornings was a decision that was rough on many people’s schedules. Having meetings on Monday mornings would often result in tardiness from members and peers often do not feel invigorated.

  • Since we scheduled meetings on Mondays we lost a meeting with our partner due to Thanksgiving. This caused us to be a week behind schedule making the next weeks heavier work wise as we need to make up the lost time.

Q3. Planned changes

  • We decided to move our weekly team meeting (the one without our partner) to Wednesday/Thursday. This gives us time to digest the tasks we get assigned from our partner on Monday where we are more likely to have questions or things we want to discuss. Having the weekly meeting here also gives us another 3 days to work on our tasks before they are due the next monday.

  • We decided that we need to be more mindful of our deadlines for the CSC301 course. With our current process we are too focused on a week to week basis that we overlook the long term further deadlines. We will need to inform our partner of our deliverable deadlines as they may assume that we have more time available than they imagined before the end of the course so we can speed up development to make sure we have a viable minimum product in the end.

Product - Review

Q4. How was your product demo?

  • We demonstrate the components created (which can each be viewed and interacted individually) in the Storybook JS environment. We create pull request drafts in which our partner reviews, pointing out errors and poor coding practices to correct.

  • Our partner can immediately see our work after a pull request, so all we had to do was complete our code, then create a pull request with the partner as the reviewer. We did this for each component created.

  • Each component was specifically requested by our partner. He accepted each one once they were completed, reviewed, and fixed.

  • Throughout the semester, our partner asked for added functionalities in some of our components, such as a highlighting effect on selected text and adding a volume indicator animation to the VoiceButton.

  • We learned that it can be very tedious to develop code exactly in the style demanded by a client. The partner made many small change requests for the components to keep the code in line with industry practices before they were accepted into the master repository.