Team Ticket For Final Review

[Krishiv111]

Team Review

Team Name: Krishiv Mahendru, Raymond Sheng, Akshat Parkiet

Team Video
New and Improved Video

Crossover Score	Runtime	Plan	Github	Analytics
0.88/0.9	Link	Link	Link	On individual tickets

Frontend Team Commit History
Backend Team Commit History

Individual

Name	Team+Indi+Value	Video	Issues	Key Commits	Analytics
Krishiv M	0.88 + 0.84 + ?	Link	Issue	Issue 1(Sorting Methods In Backend Progress), Issue 2(Frontend Progress)	Profile
Raymond S.	0.88 + 0.88 + 0.03 = 1.79	Link(second portion)	Project Struggles	Adding Abstraction to SortController, API Fetching, Created Early Drafts of Sorting, Time Complexity, Animation	Profile
Akshat P	0.88 + 0.875 + ? (Yuri S.)	Video	Issue	Frontend Contributions, Backend Contributions, Progress Check, Personal Video	Profile

Team

1. Growth and Accomplishments

---

• Mostly stuck to original plan, however, we did choose to add a compare sort page which allowed for a more clear visualization of sorting.
• We implemented new ideas of a compare method which allows up to compare two types of sorts within. the fronted.
• We added the animation to the fact of displaying sort and time complexity by visualizing the time.

3. Shortcomings/Errors

---

5. Key FE Contributions

---

• Usage of a Table
• Usage of an Animation Bar
• Usage of Compare.

7. Key Interactive Learning

[yuricoder07]

Individual Review "Yuri S" grading "Akshat P"

• Individual should show that they were key contributor and example to team. This includes their participation in ideas, plans, creating individual issues, providing code commits to project, crossover grading participation, being on task and positive example in the classroom.

Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)

• Video, includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute - 0.8/0.9 | Video is concise and highlights all contributions in an efficient manner, the video could have been more specific in explaining the aspect of combining different sorting methods. No captions, loud and clear.
• Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives - 0.8/0.9 | Issues show a good amount of progress, in fact there is one ticket called "Progress Check" which shows that Akshat cares about the team's progress.
• Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions - 0.65/0.9 | This would have been way better, I did not see as much code specificity, the video could have been more technical. Akshat shows he is a good talker, but not necessarily a good coder in the video.
• Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks - 0.9/0.9 | All commits' were recorded in progress check issues, commits' are truthful as well.

Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.

Total Math:
0.8 + 0.8 + 0.9 + 0.65 = 3.15/3.6 = 0.875

Freeform comment.

Everything runs and works just fine, valid runtime link. Key commits are all shown as well as a video demonstration. Worked on implementing algorithms (specifically one that compared sizes of crypto transaction sizes)
Contributed to user interface and visualization of their sorting algorithms and fibbonaci sequences on the frontend.
Clearly collaborated with Krishiv and Raymond to finish the project.

Final Score: 0.875/0.9

[paravsalaniwal]

Individual Review Parav Salaniwal grading Krishiv Mahendru

• Individual should show that they were key contributor and example to team. This includes their participation in ideas, plans, creating individual issues, providing code commits to project, crossover grading participation, being on task and positive example in the classroom.

Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)

• Video, includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute - 0.8/0.9

Video was descriptive enough to showcase contribution, yet wasn't as in depth about how code functions.

• Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives - 0.8/0.9

Had a couple of issues to show how progress and planning is being done, but not consistent.

• Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions - 0.85/0.9

Key commits are shown and code is contributing to the project.

• Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks - 0.9/0.9

Github analytics are very good and show consistent work being done which is useful to the project.

Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.

Grade given: 0.84/0.9

[ (0.8 + 0.8 + 0.85 + 0.9) / 3.6 ] / 0.9 = 0.84/0.9

Freeform

Using the coin API and parsing the data via JSON Parser to only output the transaction size in the backend file. Then used extends methods to sort transaction sizes via Heap sort and Bubble Sort. Used comparisons to get time taken for sorting and used various amounts of controlling methods. Worked on visualization feature on the frontend to show how sorting was done and time taken.

Overall, Krishiv made a large contribution to his group and implemented key lessons such as the various sorting algorithms and parent-child classes to keep organized.

[Orlando-c]

Individual Review "Orlando Carcamo" grading "Reymond Sheng"

• Individual should show that they were key contributor and example to team. This includes their participation in ideas, plans, creating individual issues, providing code commits to project, crossover grading participation, being on task and positive example in the classroom.
• Proof of knowledge within backend with a deep and understandable explanation of the backend as well as interaction with the frontend

Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)

• Video, includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute - 0.9
• Good demonstration of the features of the site, talked about code and made sure to explain how all the elements collaborate to produce a good website
• Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives - 0.9
• Reymond has good communication with other membersto resolve issues or problems that popped up during development. Members also showed constant contribution showing their dedication to the project
• Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions - 0.9
• Reymond had many key commits that added a main feature to the site or were resolving issues with the development.
• Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks - 0.9
• Reymond showed a very intense form of commitment and value to the project

Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.

Freeform comment.
Showed great contributions to group project, very well thought explanation of how the backend works, and shows functional working frontend with communication with backend. This deserves great indicators!

.9/.9

Team Review "Orlando C (Scrum)" grading "Raymond S (Scrum)"

• The team should have a Web Page(s) that teach/explain: Fibonacci, Algorithm, etc.
• The team should have a Web Page(s) that teach/explain: Sorting, Timing, Compares Swaps, etc.

Team Review ticket containing key Team and individual contributions

• Growth/Accomplishments in work is according to historical Team Plan, or they show revisions to plan according to work - 0.88
• Included an issue where they look at all the problems that they encountered and formed a plan on how they would fix it (or provide ideas on how to)
• Short falls/Improvement that could be made in Work or Team Plan, team highlights next steps or improvements that could be made - 0.86
• Like above, they had good communication on fixing problems and had a set plan from the beginning for their project
• Showing key accomplishments according to requirement in Java Backend such as API, Abstract Class(es), Inheritance, Polymorphic behavior, Sorting Algorithms, etc. In Sorting, there should NOT be static classes or static methods. - 0.9
• Backend includes classes, sorting in backend, fibonacci implementation, and many other features
• Showing key user interaction and learning(s). For instance how you visualized Sorting Algorithm: Bubble, Insertion, Selection, Merge... how you captured Big O, analytical data, usage of Data Structures... And/or, how you provided response and Feedback to user on their success in learning or experiencing your interface. - 0.88
• Explained the backend and how it fnctioned allowing me to get a grasp of how it works and how it interacts with the frontend

Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.

Freeform comment.

• Good visualization and an interesting topic
• Completed all requirements with added features
• Good UI and connection between backend and frontend (full stack)

Total

• .88/.9