Project 8 grading

project-8/rubric.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# GRADE: 65/80 
+
+## Original composition - 5/6 points
+
+| Points Earned | Points Possible | Requirement | Comments
+|--------------:|----------------:|-------------|---------
+|1|1| A composition is presented.
+|0|1| The composition is original.
+|4|4| The composition is artistic and/or demonstrates the features of your software.
+
+## Demo - 6/6 points
+
+| Points Earned | Points Possible | Requirement | Comments
+|--------------:|----------------:|-------------|---------
+|4|4| Each new feature was justified and demonstrated.
+|1|1| The composition was played.
+|1|1| All team members were included. | _Ben was not present, but I understand this was a surprise to all. I will penalize Ben individually for not contributing._
+
+## User manual - 5/6 points
+
+| Points Earned | Points Possible | Requirement | Comments
+|--------------:|----------------:|-------------|---------
+|2|2| There is a file named ```manual.md``` in the top-level directory. | _I found it in the ```project-8``` directory, which is fine_
+|2|2| It describes each new feature added in Project 8.
+|1|2| It explains how to use each new feature. | _It would have been helpful to be told where to find the menu items. Also some advice on how large a MIDI file is manageable, as well as the limitations and what you should / should not expect to be imported._
+
+## Feature selection - 12/12 points
+
+One difficult enhancement may be worth several easier enhancements.
+
+_Import MIDI is very cool! I'm glad you decided to do this. I tried it on a file I found myself and it worked well._
+
+https://www.lynnemusic.com/midi/bjorn__lynne-_witchwood.mid
+
+## Execution -  28/28 points
+
+### Implementation of new features - 20/20 points
+
+* All new features behave as described in the user manual.  If the description in the user manual is incomplete, then the behavior follows standard conventions and is otherwise unsurprising.
+* There are no uncaught exceptions from new features.
+* There is no debugging output from new features.
+
+### No regressions - 8/8 points
+
+All prior requirements are met, unless they have been superseded by new requirements or are documented by the team as known bugs for this iteration.
+
+## Release - 2/2 points
+
+| Pts Earned | Pts Possible | Requirement | Comments
+|-----------:|-------------:|-------------|---------
+| 1 | 1 | The release is tagged as ```project-8-release```.
+| 1 | 1 | Documentation is in the ```project-8``` directory.
+
+## Reflection and elegance - 13/20 points
+
+| Pts Earned | Pts Possible | Requirement | Comments
+|-----------:|-------------:|-------------|---------
+| 3 | 4 | UML diagram is accurate and complete. | _How is ```MidiAdapter``` related to existing classes?_
+| 2 | 4 | New classes/methods are reasonably self-explanatory. | _```InstrumentCommand``` should be named ```InstrumentChangeCommand``` for consistency. I see it's documented. ```MidiAdapter is not documented - seems you were in a hurry.  I note the only comments are commented out code, and a comment which is fairly obvious and not really necessary._
+| 2 | 2 | Design overview addresses changes from Project 7 in general.
+| 1 | 2 | Design overview addresses the implementation of each new feature. | _Just load from MIDI_
+| 4 | 6 | Assessment of what is elegant and what is not thoughtfully addresses object-oriented design principles. | _See below_
+| 1 | 1 | Velocity is presented. 
+| 0 | 1 | Team retrospective is presented.
+
+_Comments:_
+* _You did not quite apply the adapter pattern, because there is not a common interface for load from XML and load from MIDI, but it's similar._
+* _I would have liked to see some discussion of completeness, efficiency, and scalability in the assessment of what is not elegant._
+* _I also would have liked you to unpack this: "We've managed to introduce a lot of new faults in this project, and not just in the MIDI importing feature. Despite that, we haven't introduced much new inelegance." What new faults, for example?_