Lab 6: Project 1 Peer Code Review

Introduction and Logistics #

In this lab, you will compare your solution to Project 1 with 1-3 other students in your lab.

On-time lab attendance is required this week. As part of this lab, TAs will go over part of the solution for Project 1. Do not attend this lab before you have made your final Project 1 submission to Gradescope, otherwise you will get marked for academic dishonesty.

If you cannot attend your regular lab, you may attend any other lab instead, barring room capacity.

If you are physically unable to attend any lab at all, please fill out this exemption form by Friday, September 30th (09/30). We will be verifying each form submission manually, and those with invalid submissions will not be checked off. We will not be accepting any new form submissions after 09/30, and will be automatically checking off valid form submissions through Beacon during the weekend of October 1st (10/01).

If you have approved extensions for Project 1 that extend past the Lab 6 deadline (09/30), Do NOT fill out the form. You will automatically receive a 5 day extension for Lab 6, and please come to future Lab section or Office Hours to get checked off.

Again, as part of this lab, TAs will go over part of the solution for Project 1. Do not attend this lab before you have made your final Project 1 submission to Gradescope, otherwise you will get marked for academic dishonesty.

Please find the Lab06 FAQ here. Note that this lab is due Friday, September 30th. Good luck!

Skeleton #

Please run these commands when pulling the skeleton for lab06 starter files:

git pull skeleton main -X ours
git commit -m "resolved lab merge conflicts"

LinkedListDeque Overview #

Your TA will start the lab by giving a brief overview of the staff solution to LinkedListDeque.

LinkedListDeque Peer Review #

Group up with 1-3 other students and compare solutions. Don’t be afraid of meeting someone new! Programmers in 61B vary widely in their level of experience and comfort with programming. Our goal here is to help each other get better. Please be nice, and don’t feel bad if your solution is less elegant or even downright ugly. I’ve certainly written incredibly ugly, inelegant code! Why here’s a 1600 line monstrosity I wrote in 1997, and a video demo of it running if you’re curious what it does. knaveos will not be on the midterm.

Avoid the temptation to explain exactly how your implementation works to your partner. Instead focus your discussion on more specific questions. Some suggested questions are listed below:

  1. What was the most annoying bug you had and how did you fix it? Did you use the debugger? Did you fix it by adding special cases? Did you do any change-and-pray (where you make a tiny change and hope the AG approves)?
  2. Did you end up cutting anything out to make your code simpler? If so, what?
  3. Do you have any special cases in your code?
  4. Do you have any private helper methods?
  5. Does your code repeat itself anywhere? Would private helper methods have helped?
  6. Were you able to call or reuse code anywhere?

After discussion, fill out self_reflection.txt with your own self reflection.

ArrayDeque Overview #

Your TA will go over the ArrayDeque solution.

ArrayDeque Peer Review #

Now, pair up again and discuss your ArrayDeque solutions as you did for LinkedListDeque. Fill out your self_reflection.txt as you did for LinkedListDeque. We recommend that you talk to different people than you did for ArrayDeque, but it’s OK to stick with your group for ArrayDeque.

Self Reflection and Submission #

Make sure you’ve filled out out at least 4 of the questions in the self_reflection.txt document provided in the skeleton, for both LinkedListDeque and ArrayDeque. Ask a TA to check your self_reflection.txt and give you the magic word to put in magic_word.txt. Push to Github and submit to Gradescope.

Last built: 2022-12-03 16:06 UTC