Final Review Ticket

[Toby-Leeder]

Team

Crossover Score	Runtime	Plan	Github	Analytics
.8/.9	- Frontend - Backend	Plans	Github	- Frontend Commits - Backend Commits

Individual

Name	Team + Indi + Teacher	Runtime	Key Commit(s)	Analytics	Video	Individual Ticket
Toby	.8/.9 + .8/.9 = 1.6/1.8	Link	- Created Frontend Animation - Finished Backend Initial Infrastructure	- Frontend Commits - Backend Commits - Profile	Video	Link
Aiden	0.8+0.8375+teacher	Frontend Demo	- Selection and bubble sort - Main sort page	- Frontend Commits - Backend Commits - Profile	Video	Link
Ishi	0.8+0.75+Teacher	Link	- Wrote code for merge sort algorithm - Made fibonacci page	Frontend Commits Backend Commits Profile	[Video]()	Link

---

Project

The purpose of this website is to provide a comprehensive platform for users to explore, understand, and compare various sorting algorithms (merge, bubble, selection, and insertion). The website offers an interactive visual representation of these algorithms in action, allowing users to input their own lists or generate random ones of any desired length. The sorting process is visually displayed, aiding in comprehension and comparison of these sorting methods.

The website includes an analysis page that provides in-depth insights into the performance of each algorithm. Users can access information such as the number of swaps, time and space complexity, the time taken by each algorithm to execute, and the number of merges for each algorithm. These metrics are shown in a table to allow users to easily compare and understand the differences between the algorithms.

As for the Fibonacci page, users can get the Fibonacci value at the nth position, as well as the list representation of the Fibonacci sequence. There is also a visual representation to aid in understanding this sequence.

[STG-7]

Team Review "Shaurya" grading "Aiden"

• [ 0.80 ] The team should have a Web Page(s) that teach/explain: Fibonacci, Algorithm, etc.
• [ 0.75] 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

• [ 0.80 ] Growth/Accomplishments in work is according to historical Team Plan, or they show revisions to plan according to work
• [ 0.85 ] Short falls/Improvement that could be made in Work or Team Plan, team highlights next steps or improvements that could be made
• [ 0.75] 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.

• [ 0.85 ] 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.

  0.80, met expectations .

This group has demonstrated strong growth and alignment with the team plan, effectively addressing identified shortcomings. However, there are notable gaps in showcasing that this team did not work consistently over the three weeks. The overall score of 0.80/1.0 reflects positive contributions with clear opportunities for improvement in specific areas.

[DeadshotLegend]

Individual Review "Shivansh Goel" grading "Ishi Singh"

• [x] 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)

• [x] Video, includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute Video Shown.
• [x] Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives
• [x] Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions

• [x] Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks

  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.

  Freeform comment.
  Provide positivies and growth summary.
  Justify or comment on final score.
  Be sure to provide extra details on anything below 0.7 average or above 0.8.

.75, Attempted has not connected backend to frontend yet, and is not fully completed yet. There is still a lot of potential in the project.

Update: .77 Code for Sorting and Fibonacci works in video, but does not work in demo live.

[EdwinKuttappi]

Individual Review Edwin Abraham grading Toby Leeder

• [x] 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.
  • 1 very detailed visual that really helps students visualize Fibonacci/sorting algorithms
  • Key commits show Toby's participation, but I found that commits are rather large

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

• [x] Video, includes Web demo of key contribution to project, less than 1 minute - 0.7
  • There were no restrictions on voice, but Toby only had captions, but he used very good language to describe his contributions and all that he did
• [x] Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives - 0.9
  • I know this is a very organized group, and I could definitely tell that they were organized with the goals set by Toby in his individual review, as well as his self-reflection on his impact on this project
• [x] Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions - 0.85
  • Toby showed some key commits of his in his individual and team ticket with major additions and they were very meaningful to the purpose of the project
  • Code contributions weren't completely summarized and the naming conventions used for commits wasn't very detailed; this is an issue I have to fix as well
• [x] Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks - 0.8
  • Toby had great Github Analytics to multiple repositories predominantly coded in Java showcasing his expertise
  • He also showed continuous commits to both frontend and backend with primary focus on visualizing sorting on the frontend

Positives:

• Talked about his contributions to the project and showed dedication in trying to fix the sorting animations
• Demonstrated that he made large contributions to the project (i.e. Fibonacci backend and frontend)
• Toby was very descriptive with his individual issue and it shows a lot of areas where Toby can improve on
• Frontend was very clean and it looked very visually appealing

Possible Improvements:

• Could've had more issues and maybe a scrum board to organize what he and his team was working on
• Improve his video a bit more by including his voice to see if his flow of voice is natural to showcase expertise on the project
• Maybe add some more comments to your commits or title the commits so that team members know what was changed, it can even help the coder themself if they need to go back to the commit

Conclusion

I liked their project very much and it is very cool in how they decided to approach this problem with the way that they did. I believe that if they continued to polish this website, this could be a great resource for future CSSE, CSP, and CSA students to help them learn different sorting methods

Total

(0.7)+(0.9)+(0.85)+(0.8))/4=0.8/0.9