Final Milestone Report — §5: Individual Contributions (per-member)

[mehmetborasarioglu]

📝 Description

Each team member must populate their own subsection of §5 following the strict 7-point format from the official template, plus two recommended sub-points (Code Highlights, Lessons Learned) that the original spec required but the template dropped — included here because they materially improve the report's grade-readability. Each member also creates a dedicated wiki page that stores the AI prompts they used during this milestone, and links it from sub-point 5.

🎯 Goal

Seven self-authored subsections (one per member, alphabetical by surname) each containing a curated, evidence-backed account of that member's individual milestone contributions, including AI tool transparency.

📦 Deliverables

For each of the 7 members, on the Final Milestone Deliverables wiki page §5:

[Member Name] (Subgroup)

1. Responsibilities:
2. Main Contributions:
3. Significant Issues (Top 3 per category):
   - Code-Related:
     - [Issue #ID]: [brief explanation]
     - [Issue #ID]: [brief explanation]
     - [Issue #ID]: [brief explanation]
   - Non-Code-Related:
     - [Issue #ID]: [brief explanation]
     - [Issue #ID]: [brief explanation]
     - [Issue #ID]: [brief explanation]
4. Pull Requests:
   - [PR #ID]: [Description] — [Conflict Resolution if applicable]
5. AI Transparency & Documentation:
   1. Tool summary:
      1. [Tool 1]: [explanation]
      2. [Tool n]: [explanation]
   2. Prompts: [link to Prompts wiki page in this repository]
6. Individual Testing Efforts:
   1. [Test 1 Name, Commit #ID]: [brief explanation]
   2. [Test 2 Name, Commit #ID]: [brief explanation]
   ...
7. Additional Information:

— Spec extras (recommended; were on the original 10-point spec, dropped by the template) —

8. Code Highlights: a high-level walkthrough of code that significantly improved the codebase (link + 2–3 sentence rationale per highlight).
9. Lessons Learned: short reflection on what went well and what didn't this milestone.

Plus, for each member: a dedicated wiki page named Prompts-<Surname> (or similar) containing the prompts the member used during the milestone, linked from sub-point 5.2.

✅ Acceptance Criteria

• All 7 members have a populated subsection (no [Member Name] placeholders).
• Subsections are sorted alphabetically by surname.
• Sub-point 3 lists at most 3 issues per category (more = grade penalty).
• Sub-point 4 lists at least 1 PR per member with brief description.
• Sub-point 5.2 links to a real wiki page containing prompts (not a placeholder).
• Sub-point 6 lists at least 1 individually-attributable test per member, with commit ID.
• Sub-points 8 and 9 (Code Highlights, Lessons Learned) populated for each member — recommended; not strictly required by the official template.
• Every Issue/PR ID is a real link (not bare text) and resolves.

📌 Notes

• Order, alphabetical by surname:
  1. Amin Abu-Hilga — Web subgroup
  2. Övgü Su Afşar — Mobile subgroup
  3. Muhammet Sami Çakmak — Web subgroup
  4. Beratcan Doğan — Backend subgroup
  5. İbrahim Kayan — Backend subgroup
  6. Burak Ögüt — Mobile subgroup
  7. Mehmet Bora Sarıoğlu — Backend subgroup
• The Prompts wiki pages must be in this repository's wiki (per the template), not a Google Doc or external store.
• "Individual Testing Efforts" is a new requirement vs. the Lab 9 / earlier individual-contributions formats — every member must surface tests they personally wrote with commit IDs. Members who didn't write code-level tests directly should surface the closest individually-attributable test work (e.g. a Playwright spec, a manual test script committed to the repo).
• Be transparent about AI tools (Cursor, Claude, NotebookLM, etc.) — the spec calls this out explicitly.