Code peer review

[Divyadhole]

The following is the peer review of the project code by [name of team completing peer review]. The team members that participated in this review are

• ⁠Sunday Usman - @sundayusman

• ⁠Tanya Evita George - @tanyageorge

• ⁠Mellika Akbarsharifi - @mellica97 -⁠ ⁠Divya Liladhar Dhole - @Divyadhole

• ⁠Mohammad Ali Farmani - @mfarmani95

• ⁠H M Abdul Fattah - @hmfattah

• ⁠Gabriel Gedaliah Geffen - @gabegef

• ---

1. Purpose of Code

• [X ] Clearly defined and understood
• [ ] Ambiguous or unclear

---

2. Code Quality

• [ X] Code is clean, readable, and well-organized
• [ ] Adequate comments explaining complex or tricky code sections
• [X ] Variables, methods, and classes have meaningful names
• [ ] Consistent code style (indentation, naming conventions, etc.)

---

3. Functionality

• [X ] Code functions as intended and produces the expected outcome
• [ ] Edge cases have been considered and handled
• [ ] No obvious bugs or issues found

---

4. Testing

• [ ] Adequate unit tests covering key functionality
• [X ] Tests are clear and can be easily understood
• [ X] All tests pass successfully

---

5. Documentation

• [ ] Code documentation (e.g., docstrings, comments) is sufficient
• [ X] Readme or other documentation updated if necessary

---

6. Best Practices

• [ ] No hardcoded values; constants used appropriately
• [ X] Security and privacy concerns addressed (e.g., no sensitive data exposed)
• [ ] Code avoids repetition and promotes reusability

---

7. Additional Comments

• Please provide feedback, areas of improvement, or other observations. Comments need to be added on the code to explain the purpose of code

---

8. Recommendation

• [ ] Approved - ready to be merged
• [ X] Approved with minor issues - can be addressed later
• [ ] Requires changes - provide feedback and request another review

---

[NandhiniAnne]

Thanks for your feedback!!!