Peer Review 1

[eemclaughlin]

Including @pawaitemadisoncollege

Thanks for meeting with me and discussing our apps. Your app has a lot going for it and it was hard to find things to suggest for improvement.

Design/Code Review 1

Project: Auto Parts Look Up Site

Developer: Navy Jones

Reviewer: Eric McLaughlin

Item	Considerations	Comments/Suggestions
-	-	Reviewer comments and suggestions go here. Each item should have at least one "kudos" and two suggestions for improvement
Problem Statement	1. Accurately describes project purpose 2. Is professional and free of typos, slang, etc. 3. Fully explains the problem and the solution 4. Is understandable by the average person	- Your goal is well defined and I think that it will be nice to be able to be able to compare part prices and availability. Cool Idea. - Its awesome that this app is a progression from your Adv. Java project. But, since this project seems to be pretty different, you may be able to leave off that reference to refine your statement a little. - I did notice some spelling/grammar errors that could be looked at. Ex. Breaks/Brakes, some missing commas and long sentences.
Design Documentation	1. Navigation/flow through the application is logical and easy to use. 2. The order in which values are displayed are logical and easy to understand/use 3. The order in which the form fields entered are logical and easy to understand/use 4. All data discussed/documented (problem statement, flow, db design, etc.) is represented on the screens	- I thought your screen designs were very well done and really give a sense of how your app will look. All the components seem to be laid out very logically and pages seems to flow very well. - On your parts listing design document, there is quite a bit of empty space between each part. I would try to make each part card bigger or get more cards per row to fill that in a bit. - I have to say, I am very impressed by your app design and I can't think of anything else I would change. Great job!
Data model/Database	1. Everything on the screens and problem statement/flow is represented in the model 2. There is at least one 1-to-many relationship. 3. The model represents good database design	- Your database design is structured well and covers all the parts of your project very well. All columns are in the correct tables and are laid out well. - I know the use of composite keys on junction tables is often considered best practice. However, I have read that, particularly with junctions that already have extra columns (like your PartsMerchants), adding a designated primary key might be a better choice. This is because tables like this can end up growing into its own thing over time and adding an id into it later can, of course, be difficult. (I am no expert on this, though; just seems to make sense to me.) - I thought it might be a little confusing that you used underscores and capitals sometimes (Users_id, Parts_id) but then other times did not (categoryid, partImageFile).
Code	1. Proper Maven project structure is used 2. a .gitignore file for IntelliJ Java projects has been implemented 3. There is not any redundant or copy/paste code in the JSPs or classes 4. Classes are appropriately-sized (no monster classes) Property files are used appropriately: no hard-coded values 5. Logging statements are used rather than System.out.println and printStackTrace. 6. There are appropriate unit tests/code coverage.	- Everything is looking great so far. Proper structure is used and classes are well built. I am very impressed by your work on the API stuff. Great work! -With checkpoint 2 coming soon, you may want to focus on getting some dao and unit testing work in to meet the criteria for that. - I know you are still actively working on it, but don't forget to add some javadoc to your RockAuto.java and get rid of the system.out.printlns.

[pawaitemadisoncollege]

@eemclaughlin This review that shows you took time to carefully inspect all aspects of the project. Thank you for being so thoughtful and professional with your feedback!