nolanplatt / AP-CSA-T2

2 stars 1 forks source link

Nolan Crossover Review Ticket 2/7 for Arch #39

Open nolanplatt opened 2 years ago

nolanplatt commented 2 years ago

1 Minute Video Wiki My Commits

All FRQs publicly accessible 24/7 on our deployed website

USER INPUT (minimum 3) I have three FRQs with input. This is FRQs units 2, 3 & 5. All FRQs have output and display my own code that fully functions. WIKI & UNDERSTANDING I understand all the FRQs as demonstrated via my wiki. All of my commits are my own, and can be seen here. Everything was completed on time.

To be graded by @Archkitten FRQ Unit 5 Comparison Unit 5 Part 1 was similar to mine, methods were swapped around but every requirement was met. Unit 5 Part 2 was also similar, but the passwordGenerator and passwordCount methods were slightly different. Order of code was in different places, Nolan used a different variable to represent the combined prefix and password. (+) Code should work, all parts are in place.

FRQ Unit 6 Comparison Unit 6 Part 1 were both very simple, using an enhanced for loop in order to print each word ending in "ing". The code runs with the correct output. I have a question though, what is "foo" and "bar" within the ing[] array? It should've been the list of words college board provided, unless I'm missing something. Unit 6 Part 2 was complex, but it works for both. Nolan used if-statements to find the minimum and maximum values of the array instead of complex Math.functions that I used. I prefer Nolan's method actually. (+) Code runs correctly (+) Correct output (-) Mismatched array? Unless I'm mistaken

FRQ Unit 10 Comparison Unit 10 greatest common factor we both used the same logic that collegeboard provided. Nolan's code is basically the same as mine, but the output is wrong somehow. The greatest common factor of 3 and 1 in the output should be 1, but somehow Nolan's code has the result showing up as 3. I don't know why this is happening, his code is pretty much the same as mine. The reduce fraction method works as intended. (+) Code should be correct (-) Mismatched output

Overall FRQ Summary Reflection (+) Easy to execute runtime - Everything was in one place on the website. (+) Commits were plentiful and showed individual work throughout the month. Showed iteration and bug fixing, changing and developing. (+) All requirements met, one minute video was clear and highlighted features and how to run FRQs. (+) Wiki was brief and easy to navigate, each FRQ was listed with key learning points and knowledge learned. (+) All code logic was correct. (+) Minimum of 2 FRQs had user input, requirement met. (-) a single missing or incorrect output, for whatever reason.

Overall Grade: 9.9/10