readme.md

1201804 - Rafael Araújo - Sprint C - Self Assessment

This section is mandatory for students of LAPR4

Engineering Process

Level	Description
0 - Unacceptable	Did not use
1 – Attempt	The engineering process is very incipient, with almost no evidence of technical documentation or many errors.
2 – Many Defects	There is already a significant set of engineering artefacts, but the engineering process has evidence of significant errors (e.g. incorrect order of activities, lack of justification when moving between activities/phases of the process) or significant flaws in good practices and techniques that students should apply.
3 – Some Defects	There is evidence of a globally correct engineering process, although there may be small flaws in documentation or some activities with errors or missing (e.g. lack of testing) as well as small flaws in the application of good practices and techniques. There may be some inconsistency between code and design.
4 – Correct	The engineering process is correct. Code and design are completely aligned. Failures in the application of good practices and techniques are almost meaningless.
5 - Exceptional	The engineering process is correct (order of activities). Code and design are completely aligned. Very good justification of the process followed/applied. Application of good practices and techniques is exemplary.

Selected Level: 5

Justification and Evidences: The engineering process was correctly followed, with all the necessary documentation and justification. The code and design are completely aligned, and the application of good practices and techniques is exemplary.

Issues and Version Control

Level	Description
0 – Unacceptable	Did not use
1 – Attempt	Very sparse use of the repository.
2 – Many Defects	Basic use of the repository: messages of little significance and without any connection to issues/tasks.
3 – Some Defects	Basic use of the repository: mostly significant messages but with little connection to issues/tasks. They use a task/issue management board, but with errors.
4 – Correct	Frequent use of the repository: messages that are mostly significant but sometimes fail to connect to issues/tasks. Use task/issue management boards correctly.
5 - Exceptional	Frequent use of the repository: mostly significant messages and (virtually) no failures in connection to issues/tasks. They use task/issue management boards in an exemplary way.

Selected Level: 5

Justification and Evidences: The use of the repository was exemplary, with significant messages and no failures in connection to issues/tasks. The task/issue management boards were used in an exemplary way.

Team Work

Level	Description
0 – Unacceptable	There is no evidence of any type of teamwork process.
1 – Attempt	There is little evidence of teamwork.
2 – Many Defects	There is some evidence of work with coordination between teams.
3 – Some Defects	There is evidence of a team decision-making process in which students actively participate, although some minor problems may exist, such as the discovery of dependencies only at the end of the process.
4 – Correct	There is evidence of a team decision-making process in which students actively participate and which results in the assignment of tasks in a clear and timely manner.
5 - Exceptional	There is evidence of a team decision-making process in which students actively participate and which results in the assignment of tasks in a clear and timely manner. There is evidence of group tasks such as integration and deployment activities.

Selected Level: 5

Justification and Evidences: The team decision-making process was exemplary, with students actively participating and resulting in the assignment of tasks in a clear and timely manner. There was evidence of group tasks such as integration and deployment activities.

Deployment

Level	Description
0 – Unacceptable	The group is unable to demonstrate the system developed outside the IDE.
1 – Attempt	The system runs outside the IDE, on the local machine without any type of virtualization. The group was able to demonstrate the system but with many failures (e.g. need to restart parts of the system). The demo is based on the version marked in the repository and obtained from Moodle.
2 – Many Defects	The system runs outside the IDE, on the local machine without any type of virtualization. The group managed to demonstrate the application albeit with some minor glitches during the demonstration. The correct version was used (marked in the repository and sent to Moodle).
3 – Some Defects	The system runs outside the IDE, in a single local virtual environment (machine or container). The group was able to demonstrate the system without any execution failures during the demonstration. The correct version was used.
4 – Correct	The system runs outside the IDE, distributed across two or more local virtual environments (machines or containers). The group was able to demonstrate the system without any execution failures during the demonstration. The correct version was used.
5 - Exceptional	The system runs outside the IDE, distributed across two or more remote virtual environments (machines or containers) (e.g. in the cloud). The group was able to demonstrate the system without any execution failures during the demonstration. The correct version was used.

Selected Level: 5

Justification and Evidences: The system runs outside the IDE, distributed across two or more remote virtual environments (machines or containers) (e.g. in the cloud). The group was able to demonstrate the system without any execution failures during the demonstration. The correct version was used.

Integration

Level	Description
0 – Unacceptable	There is no integration.
1 – Attempt
2 – Many Defects	There is some integration, but it is very rudimentary (for example, they define and test a grammar in the IDE but this is not integrated into the solution).
3 – Some Defects	There is integration between most components/functionality, presenting some inconsistencies and/or unnecessary coupling.
4 – Correct	There is integration between most components/functionalities without any type of incoherence and/or unnecessary coupling.
5 - Exceptional	The previous item is true and this integration is perfectly documented.

Selected Level: 5

Justification and Evidences: The integration was perfectly documented, with integration between most components/functionalities without any type of incoherence and/or unnecessary coupling.

Req. Satisfaction

Level	Description
0 – Unacceptable	No solution was developed for the requirements.
1 – Attempt	Most of the requirements were not minimally fulfilled due to interpretation flaws that were not adequately justified.
2 – Many Defects	Most of the requirements were minimally met, although there were some flaws in interpretation that were not correctly justified and reveal insufficient knowledge of the problem domain. They do not have evidence of defining acceptance criteria for each user story/functionality.
3 – Some Defects	All requirements were met almost in full and any options related to the interpretation/analysis of the problem are correctly justified. Incomplete definition of acceptance criteria. Some acceptance criteria reflected in tests.
4 – Correct	All requirements have been met in full, and any options related to the interpretation/analysis of the problem are correctly justified and are evidence of your understanding of the problem domain. Very complete definition of acceptance criteria. Most criteria are reflected in tests.
5 - Exceptional	The above is true and alternatives are also discussed that are supported by a rich understanding of the problem domain. These alternatives may be related to the problem domain or the high-level architecture of the solution. Exemplary acceptance criteria and excellent connection to testing.

Selected Level: 5

Justification and Evidences: All requirements have been met in full, and any options related to the interpretation/analysis of the problem are correctly justified and are evidence of your understanding of the problem domain. Very complete definition of acceptance criteria. Most criteria are reflected in tests.