Expertiza_Wiki - User contributions [en]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-11-23T21:59:32Z

Czhou6: /* Design Flowchart */

== Project Index ==
* Deployment Link:
http://152.7.98.249:8080/
* Github Repository:
https://github.com/MayoNaizz/expertiza
* Github Pull Request:
https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1834
* Youtube Video Link:
https://youtu.be/FyBfWrdX5Dk

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Why This Project ===

Peer review is a great way for students to learn about how well they have developed their application. However, sometimes, the peer reviews may not be thorough and the team/person's work reviewed might not reflect the actual status of the development. By letting course staff perform reviews as well, the reviewer and the reviewee both benefit, improving the overall learning experience. Currently, there exists no method for the instructor/TA to perform reviews of assignments submitted by the students. Hence this is what this project aims at, allowing instructor/TA to perform reviews.

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Edited ===
'''Controller: '''
app/controllers/response_controller.rb
'''Model: '''
app/models/review_response_map.rb
app/models/response_map.rb
'''View:'''
app/views/student_review/_responses.html.erb
app/views/shared/responses/_response_actions.html.erb
app/views/grades/view_team.html.erb
app/views/grades/_add_icon_to_name.html.erb
app/views/assignments/list_submissions.html.erb
app/views/assignments/_responses.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li(zli82)
* Hao Zhang (hzhang62)

== Project Design Philosophy ==
Our project aims at enabling the instructor/TA to review the submissions using the same form that a student uses while peer-reviewing. For this, our implementation has been divided into 3 parts, and can be described as follows:
<ol>
<li>The first part involves the primary functionality of letting the staff perform a review on students submission.</li>
<li>The second part involves allowing the students to identify from their end, which review has been performed by an instructor/TA. This will help students improve their project as the opinions presented by a staff member would be valid.</li>
<li>Third, we plan to enable the instructor/TA to do review instead of assign grade in the review round. After the review Round, the review review session will be closed and replaced with assigning grade interface</li>
</ol>

== Design Flowchart ==

*Functions that were included
[[File:Fc.png]]

== Issue ==
=== Plan of Work ===
*In the assignment page of the Expertiza, If an instructor or a TA is a participant in an assignment, then the instructor should be able to review any team that has submitted the assignment.
*In order to see who is participating in the assignment, click on the “Add participants” icon (the one with the + sign and a picture of a person). That will bring up a list of participants and allow you to add more participants.
*Make the instructor and/or TAs participants, and then they should be allowed to do reviews.
[[File:E2086 assignment.png|900px]]

*Then, to perform reviews, the instructor/TA would click on the clipboard-like “View submissions” icon, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 view submission.png|900px]]

*A list of submissions would be pulled up:
[[File:E2086 submission.png|900px]]
*If the last due date for the assignment has not passed, then the “Assign grade” link should be changed to “Perform review”, and when clicked on, it should pull up a review page for the team, showing their submitted work at the top, as a review page normally does.
* We will add the review link in <code>views/assignments/list_submissions.html.erb</code> and once instructor/TA click that link. Controller <code> response </code> will be called. Once the <code> get_current_stage() </code> change to "Finished" it means the due day of the review round is over. The review link will be replaced by the grade link.

*Also, it would be more clear if we could mark the instructor's review with something special on the reviews page, as shown below.
*We will add an icon in <code>views/grades/view_team.html.erb</code> and <code>app/views/response/view.html.erb</code> if these review is made by instructor or TA.
This function will be implemented in <code> helpers/grades_helper.rb </code>
[[File:E2086 review.png|700px]]

== Implementation ==
=== Step 1: create a review link for staff(TA/Instructor) ===
We create a link "Begin review" in '''list_submissions.html.erb''' in order to let staff(TA/Instructor) perform review before the review deadline. And if the current stage becomes "Finished", we show the "Assign Grade" link. We use function '''current_user_is_assignment_participant''' to check if the current user have access to perform review. If the current user does not have the access to this assignment. No link will be shown.
 
[[File:Step1.png]]
 
This is what it looks like.
 
[[File:E2086 begin review.png]]
 

=== Step 2: refactor the view part of the review ===
first, we found some code in the '''student_review/_responses''' should not show here. The purpose of the code from line 5 to line 12 is to find team members. This action relates to response_map. So we created a function called "find_team_member" and moved the code into '''response_map'''.
 
[[File:Step2 1.png]]
 
[[File:Step2 2.png]]
 
Second, we found it is better to use '''unless''' instead of using ''' if ! ''' in ruby on rails. So we fixed this small issue.
 
[[File:Step2 3.png]]
 
Third, we found that the student review and the staff review have a lot of common code. So we refactor the '''student_review/_responses''' and let student review and staff review share one common template. We created a symbol variable ''':reviewer_role''' in order to identify the role of performing review. The shared template locates in app/view/shared/responses folder.
 
[[File:Step2 4.png]]
 
=== Step 3: create shared view for response_action ===
In this file, student review and staff review share one template. We use '''reviewer_role''' to identify the role of the reviewer and render the different views for this reviewer. The page will show different review action base on the current stage and if the review did this review before (For example: if the current stage Finished and no previous review, the page will show "Begin review").
 
[[File:Step2 5.png]]
 
=== Step 4: refactor response controller ===
Before modification, the normal review could only be done by students. When the student finished the review and clicked “Submit”, the page seemed to redirect from the students' review. Since we newly added staff to review, the location of redirect should also be modified accordingly.
 
[[File:Step4.png]]
 
=== Step 5: Allow students to identify that their submission has been reviewed by staff ===
A simple check is made to determine if the reviewer is a TA or Instructor. app/assets/images/staff.png is displayed to make an instructor performed review stand out from other reviews.
First, in order to determine if a review was completed by a staff participant (either a TA or an instructor), we create a function in app/models/review_response_map.rb.
 
[[File:Step5 1.png]]
 
If the mouse hovers over the icon a tooltip appears saying "Icon indicates this review was done by course staff"
 
[[File:Step icon.png]]
 
 
[[File:Step6.png]]
 

== Test Plan ==
The basic idea of this project is to change the 'Assign Grade' link to 'Perform review' if the deadline of a assignment has not passed. Thus, to test the functionality of this part, we plan to test it at the frontend

=== Configuration ===
<ol>

<li> Click 'Manage' -> 'Assignments' to go to assignment page.</li>
<li> Add a new assignment for a course that the current account has registered. Make sure the due date of the assignment is after the the time to perform the review as an instructor.</li>
<li> Click 'Add participants' icon in the new created assignment row, and 'Copy participants from course' to add all students registered to this course. Then add the current instructor account to this assignment through 'Enter a user login:' input space.</li>
<li> Impersonate as one of the students to simulate the submission of work.</li>
</ol>

=== Perform review ===
<ol>
<li> Click 'Manage' -> 'Assignments' to go to assignment page as instructor.</li>
<li> Click 'View submission' icon in the new created assignment row. Now the 'Begin review' link show be under participants name if the due date has not passed.</li>
<li> Click one of the 'Begin review' link to do the review for a certain submission by using the same templet of student peer review.</li>
<li> Impersonate the student that was previously reviewed by instructor. Check score for the assignment, and the review from the instructor should be recognizable from other student reviews.</li>
</ol>

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/features/instructor_do_review_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==
 
[[File:E2086rspec.png]]
 
 
All Rspec tests are passing for this implementation as is evident by the Travis CI.
 
[[File:Travis-pass.png]]

== Demo ==
The video [https://youtu.be/FyBfWrdX5Dk] demonstrates the functionalities implemented in this project.

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

File:Fc.png

2020-11-23T21:59:17Z

Czhou6:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-11-13T05:05:44Z

Czhou6: /* Project Index */

== Project Index ==
* Deployment Link:

* Github Repository:
https://github.com/MayoNaizz/expertiza
* Github Pull Request:

* Youtube Video Link:
https://youtu.be/FyBfWrdX5Dk

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Why This Project ===

Peer review is a great way for students to learn about how well they have developed their application. However, sometimes, the peer reviews may not be thorough and the team/person's work reviewed might not reflect the actual status of the development. By letting course staff perform reviews as well, the reviewer and the reviewee both benefit, improving the overall learning experience. Currently, there exists no method for the instructor/TA to perform reviews of assignments submitted by the students. Hence this is what this project aims at, allowing instructor/TA to perform reviews.

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li(zli82)
* Hao Zhang (hzhang62)

== Project Design Philosophy ==
Our project aims at enabling the instructor/TA to review the submissions using the same form that a student uses while peer-reviewing. For this, our implementation has been divided into 3 parts, and can be described as follows:
<ol>
<li>The first part involves the primary functionality of letting the staff perform a review on students submission.</li>
<li>The second part involves allowing the students to identify from their end, which review has been performed by an instructor/TA. This will help students improve their project as the opinions presented by a staff member would be valid.</li>
<li>Third, we plan to enable the instructor/TA to do review instead of assign grade in the review round. After the review Round, the review review session will be closed and replaced with assigning grade interface</li>
</ol>

== Design Flowchart ==
*When creating the assignment, the instructor should get a checkbox option asking whether allow the instructor to review all submissions as shown below.
[[File:E2086 flowchart1.png]]

*Functions that were included
[[File:E2086 flowchart2.png]]

== Issue ==
=== Plan of Work ===
*In the assignment page of the Expertiza, If an instructor or a TA is a participant in an assignment, then the instructor should be able to review any team that has submitted the assignment.
*In order to see who is participating in the assignment, click on the “Add participants” icon (the one with the + sign and a picture of a person). That will bring up a list of participants and allow you to add more participants.
*Make the instructor and/or TAs participants, and then they should be allowed to do reviews.
[[File:E2086 assignment.png|900px]]

*Then, to perform reviews, the instructor/TA would click on the clipboard-like “View submissions” icon, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 view submission.png|900px]]

*A list of submissions would be pulled up:
[[File:E2086 submission.png|900px]]
*If the last due date for the assignment has not passed, then the “Assign grade” link should be changed to “Perform review”, and when clicked on, it should pull up a review page for the team, showing their submitted work at the top, as a review page normally does.
* We will add the review link in <code>views/assignments/list_submissions.html.erb</code> and once instructor/TA click that link. Controller <code> response </code> will be called. Once the <code> get_current_stage() </code> change to "Finished" it means the due day of the review round is over. The review link will be replaced by the grade link.

*Also, it would be more clear if we could mark the instructor's review with something special on the reviews page, as shown below.
*We will add an icon in <code>views/grades/view_team.html.erb</code> and <code>app/views/response/view.html.erb</code> if these review is made by instructor or TA.
This function will be implemented in <code> helpers/grades_helper.rb </code>
[[File:E2086 review.png|700px]]

== Test Plan ==
The basic idea of this project is to change the 'Assign Grade' link to 'Perform review' if the deadline of a assignment has not passed. Thus, to test the functionality of this part, we plan to test it at the frontend

=== Configuration ===
<ol>

<li> Click 'Manage' -> 'Assignments' to go to assignment page.</li>
<li> Add a new assignment for a course that the current account has registered. Make sure the due date of the assignment is after the the time to perform the review as an instructor.</li>
<li> Click 'Add participants' icon in the new created assignment row, and 'Copy participants from course' to add all students registered to this course. Then add the current instructor account to this assignment through 'Enter a user login:' input space.</li>
<li> Impersonate as one of the students to simulate the submission of work.</li>
</ol>

=== Perform review ===
<ol>
<li> Click 'Manage' -> 'Assignments' to go to assignment page as instructor.</li>
<li> Click 'View submission' icon in the new created assignment row. Now the 'Perform review' link show be under participants name if the due date has not passed.</li>
<li> Click one of the 'Perform review' link to do the review for a certain submission by using the same templet of student peer review.</li>
<li> Impersonate the student that was previously reviewed by instructor. Check score for the assignment, and the review from the instructor should be recognizable from other student reviews.</li>
</ol>

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-29T17:08:26Z

Czhou6: /* Plan of Work */

== Project Index ==
* Deployment Link:

* Github Repository:
https://github.com/MayoNaizz/expertiza
* Github Pull Request:

* Video Link:

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Why This Project ===

Peer review is a great way for students to learn about how well they have developed their application. However, sometimes, the peer reviews may not be thorough and the team/person's work reviewed might not reflect the actual status of the development. By letting course staff perform reviews as well, the reviewer and the reviewee both benefit, improving the overall learning experience. Currently, there exists no method for the instructor/TA to perform reviews of assignments submitted by the students. Hence this is what this project aims at, allowing instructor/TA to perform reviews.

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li(zli82)
* Hao Zhang (hzhang62)

== Project Design Philosophy ==
Our project aims at enabling the instructor/TA to review the submissions using the same form that a student uses while peer-reviewing. For this, our implementation has been divided into 3 parts, and can be described as follows:
<ol>
<li>The first part involves the primary functionality of letting the staff perform a review on students submission.</li>
<li>The second part involves allowing the students to identify from their end, which review has been performed by an instructor/TA. This will help students improve their project as the opinions presented by a staff member would be valid.</li>
<li>Third, we plan to enable the instructor/TA to do review instead of assign grade in the review round. After the review Round, the review review session will be closed and replaced with assigning grade interface</li>
</ol>

== Design Flowchart ==
*When creating the assignment, the instructor should get a checkbox option asking whether allow the instructor to review all submissions as shown below.
[[File:E2086 flowchart1.png]]

*Functions that were included
[[File:E2086 flowchart2.png]]

== Issue ==
=== Plan of Work ===
*In the assignment page of the Expertiza, If an instructor or a TA is a participant in an assignment, then the instructor should be able to review any team that has submitted the assignment.
*In order to see who is participating in the assignment, click on the “Add participants” icon (the one with the + sign and a picture of a person). That will bring up a list of participants and allow you to add more participants.
*Make the instructor and/or TAs participants, and then they should be allowed to do reviews.
[[File:E2086 assignment.png|900px]]

*Then, to perform reviews, the instructor/TA would click on the clipboard-like “View submissions” icon, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 view submission.png|900px]]

*A list of submissions would be pulled up:
[[File:E2086 submission.png|900px]]
*If the last due date for the assignment has not passed, then the “Assign grade” link should be changed to “Perform review”, and when clicked on, it should pull up a review page for the team, showing their submitted work at the top, as a review page normally does.
* We will add the review link in <code>views/assignments/list_submissions.html.erb</code> and once instructor/TA click that link. Controller <code> response </code> will be called. Once the <code> get_current_stage() </code> change to "Finished" it means the due day of the review round is over. The review link will be replaced by the grade link.

*Also, it would be more clear if we could mark the instructor's review with something special on the reviews page, as shown below.
*We will add an icon in <code>views/grades/view_team.html.erb</code> and <code>app/views/response/view.html.erb</code> if these review is made by instructor or TA.
This function will be implemented in <code> helpers/grades_helper.rb </code>
[[File:E2086 review.png|700px]]

== Test Plan ==
The basic idea of this project is to change the 'Assign Grade' link to 'Perform review' if the deadline of a assignment has not passed. Thus, to test the functionality of this part, we plan to test it at the frontend

=== Configuration ===
<ol>

<li> Click 'Manage' -> 'Assignments' to go to assignment page.</li>
<li> Add a new assignment for a course that the current account has registered. Make sure the due date of the assignment is after the the time to perform the review as an instructor.</li>
<li> Click 'Add participants' icon in the new created assignment row, and 'Copy participants from course' to add all students registered to this course. Then add the current instructor account to this assignment through 'Enter a user login:' input space.</li>
<li> Impersonate as one of the students to simulate the submission of work.</li>
</ol>

=== Perform review ===
<ol>
<li> Click 'Manage' -> 'Assignments' to go to assignment page as instructor.</li>
<li> Click 'View submission' icon in the new created assignment row. Now the 'Perform review' link show be under participants name if the due date has not passed.</li>
<li> Click one of the 'Perform review' link to do the review for a certain submission by using the same templet of student peer review.</li>
<li> Impersonate the student that was previously reviewed by instructor. Check score for the assignment, and the review from the instructor should be recognizable from other student reviews.</li>
</ol>

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-29T17:08:00Z

Czhou6: /* Design Flowchart */

== Project Index ==
* Deployment Link:

* Github Repository:
https://github.com/MayoNaizz/expertiza
* Github Pull Request:

* Video Link:

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Why This Project ===

Peer review is a great way for students to learn about how well they have developed their application. However, sometimes, the peer reviews may not be thorough and the team/person's work reviewed might not reflect the actual status of the development. By letting course staff perform reviews as well, the reviewer and the reviewee both benefit, improving the overall learning experience. Currently, there exists no method for the instructor/TA to perform reviews of assignments submitted by the students. Hence this is what this project aims at, allowing instructor/TA to perform reviews.

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li(zli82)
* Hao Zhang (hzhang62)

== Project Design Philosophy ==
Our project aims at enabling the instructor/TA to review the submissions using the same form that a student uses while peer-reviewing. For this, our implementation has been divided into 3 parts, and can be described as follows:
<ol>
<li>The first part involves the primary functionality of letting the staff perform a review on students submission.</li>
<li>The second part involves allowing the students to identify from their end, which review has been performed by an instructor/TA. This will help students improve their project as the opinions presented by a staff member would be valid.</li>
<li>Third, we plan to enable the instructor/TA to do review instead of assign grade in the review round. After the review Round, the review review session will be closed and replaced with assigning grade interface</li>
</ol>

== Design Flowchart ==
*When creating the assignment, the instructor should get a checkbox option asking whether allow the instructor to review all submissions as shown below.
[[File:E2086 flowchart1.png]]

*Functions that were included
[[File:E2086 flowchart2.png]]

== Issue ==
=== Plan of Work ===
*In the assignment page of the Expertiza, If an instructor or a TA is a participant in an assignment, then the instructor should be able to review any team that has submitted the assignment.
*In order to see who is participating in the assignment, click on the “Add participants” icon (the one with the + sign and a picture of a person). That will bring up a list of participants and allow you to add more participants.
*Make the instructor and/or TAs participants, and then they should be allowed to do reviews.
[[File:E2086 assignment.png|900px]]

*Then, to perform reviews, the instructor/TA would click on the clipboard-like “View submissions” icon, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 view submission.png|900px]]

*A list of submissions would be pulled up:
[[File:E2086 submission.png|900px]]
*If the last due date for the assignment has not passed, then the “Assign grade” link should be changed to “Perform review”, and when clicked on, it should pull up a review page for the team, showing their submitted work at the top, as a review page normally does.
* We will add the review link in <code>views/assignments/list_submissions.html.erb</code> and once instructor/TA click that link. Controller <code> response </code> will be called. Once the <code> get_current_stage() </code> change to "Finished" it means the due day of the review round is over. The review link will be replaced by the grade link. This link will also be added in <code>views/assignments/list_submissions.html.erb </code>

*Also, it would be more clear if we could mark the instructor's review with something special on the reviews page, as shown below.
*We will add an icon in <code>views/grades/view_team.html.erb</code> and <code>app/views/response/view.html.erb</code> if these review is made by instructor or TA.
This function will be implemented in <code> helpers/grades_helper.rb </code>
[[File:E2086 review.png|700px]]

== Test Plan ==
The basic idea of this project is to change the 'Assign Grade' link to 'Perform review' if the deadline of a assignment has not passed. Thus, to test the functionality of this part, we plan to test it at the frontend

=== Configuration ===
<ol>

<li> Click 'Manage' -> 'Assignments' to go to assignment page.</li>
<li> Add a new assignment for a course that the current account has registered. Make sure the due date of the assignment is after the the time to perform the review as an instructor.</li>
<li> Click 'Add participants' icon in the new created assignment row, and 'Copy participants from course' to add all students registered to this course. Then add the current instructor account to this assignment through 'Enter a user login:' input space.</li>
<li> Impersonate as one of the students to simulate the submission of work.</li>
</ol>

=== Perform review ===
<ol>
<li> Click 'Manage' -> 'Assignments' to go to assignment page as instructor.</li>
<li> Click 'View submission' icon in the new created assignment row. Now the 'Perform review' link show be under participants name if the due date has not passed.</li>
<li> Click one of the 'Perform review' link to do the review for a certain submission by using the same templet of student peer review.</li>
<li> Impersonate the student that was previously reviewed by instructor. Check score for the assignment, and the review from the instructor should be recognizable from other student reviews.</li>
</ol>

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-23T01:01:45Z

Czhou6: /* Running Tests */

== Project Index ==
* Deployment Link:

* Github Repository:
https://github.com/joeyzhou826/expertiza
* Github Pull Request:

* Video Link:

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Why This Project ===

Peer review is a great way for students to learn about how well they have developed their application. However, sometimes, the peer reviews may not be thorough and the team/person's work reviewed might not reflect the actual status of the development. By letting course staff perform reviews as well, the reviewer and the reviewee both benefit, improving the overall learning experience. Currently, there exists no method for the instructor/TA to perform reviews of assignments submitted by the students. Hence this is what this project aims at, allowing instructor/TA to perform reviews.

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li(zli82)
* Hao Zhang (hzhang62)

== Project Design Philosophy ==
Our project aims at enabling the instructor/TA to review the submissions using the same form that a student uses while peer-reviewing. For this, our implementation has been divided into 3 parts, and can be described as follows:
<ol>
<li>The first part involves the primary functionality of letting the staff perform a review on students submission.</li>
<li>The second part involves allowing the students to identify from their end, which review has been performed by an instructor/TA. This will help students improve their project as the opinions presented by a staff member would be valid.</li>
<li>Third, we plan to enable the instructor/TA to do review instead of assign grade in the review round. After the review Round, the review review session will be closed and replaced with assigning grade interface</li>
</ol>

== Design Flowchart ==
*When creating the assignment, the instructor should get a checkbox option asking whether allow the instructor to review all submissions as shown below.
[[File:E2086 flowchart1.png]]

*Ideal Process of this function
[[File:E2086 flowchart2.png]]

== Issue ==
=== Plan of Work ===
*In the assignment page of the Expertiza, If an instructor or a TA is a participant in an assignment, then the instructor should be able to review any team that has submitted the assignment.
*In order to see who is participating in the assignment, click on the “Add participants” icon (the one with the + sign and a picture of a person). That will bring up a list of participants and allow you to add more participants.
*Make the instructor and/or TAs participants, and then they should be allowed to do reviews.
[[File:E2086 assignment.png|900px]]

*Then, to perform reviews, the instructor/TA would click on the clipboard-like “View submissions” icon, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 view submission.png|900px]]

*A list of submissions would be pulled up:
[[File:E2086 submission.png|900px]]
*If the last due date for the assignment has not passed, then the “Assign grade” link should be changed to “Perform review”, and when clicked on, it should pull up a review page for the team, showing their submitted work at the top, as a review page normally does.

*Also, it would be more clear if we could mark the instructor's review with something special on the reviews page, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 review.png|700px]]

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-22T21:14:44Z

Czhou6: /* Project Design Philosophy */

== Project Index ==
* Deployment Link:

* Github Repository:
https://github.com/joeyzhou826/expertiza
* Github Pull Request:

* Video Link:

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Why This Project ===

Peer review is a great way for students to learn about how well they have developed their application. However, sometimes, the peer reviews may not be thorough and the team/person's work reviewed might not reflect the actual status of the development. By letting course staff perform reviews as well, the reviewer and the reviewee both benefit, improving the overall learning experience. Currently, there exists no method for the instructor/TA to perform reviews of assignments submitted by the students. Hence this is what this project aims at, allowing instructor/TA to perform reviews.

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li(zli82)
* Hao Zhang (hzhang62)

== Project Design Philosophy ==
Our project aims at enabling the instructor/TA to review the submissions using the same form that a student uses while peer-reviewing. For this, our implementation has been divided into 3 parts, and can be described as follows:
<ol>
<li>The first part involves the primary functionality of letting the staff perform a review on students submission.</li>
<li>The second part involves allowing the students to identify from their end, which review has been performed by an instructor/TA. This will help students improve their project as the opinions presented by a staff member would be valid.</li>
<li>Third, we plan to enable the instructor/TA to do review instead of assign grade in the review round. After the review Round, the review review session will be closed and replaced with assigning grade interface</li>
</ol>

== Design Flowchart ==
*When creating the assignment, the instructor should get a checkbox option asking whether allow the instructor to review all submissions as shown below.
[[File:E2086 flowchart1.png]]

*Ideal Process of this function
[[File:E2086 flowchart2.png]]

== Issue ==
=== Plan of Work ===
*In the assignment page of the Expertiza, If an instructor or a TA is a participant in an assignment, then the instructor should be able to review any team that has submitted the assignment.
*In order to see who is participating in the assignment, click on the “Add participants” icon (the one with the + sign and a picture of a person). That will bring up a list of participants and allow you to add more participants.
*Make the instructor and/or TAs participants, and then they should be allowed to do reviews.
[[File:E2086 assignment.png|900px]]

*Then, to perform reviews, the instructor/TA would click on the clipboard-like “View submissions” icon, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 view submission.png|900px]]

*A list of submissions would be pulled up:
[[File:E2086 submission.png|900px]]
*If the last due date for the assignment has not passed, then the “Assign grade” link should be changed to “Perform review”, and when clicked on, it should pull up a review page for the team, showing their submitted work at the top, as a review page normally does.

*Also, it would be more clear if we could mark the instructor's review with something special on the reviews page, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 review.png|700px]]

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-22T21:11:54Z

Czhou6: /* Project Design Philosophy */

== Project Index ==
* Deployment Link:

* Github Repository:
https://github.com/joeyzhou826/expertiza
* Github Pull Request:

* Video Link:

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Why This Project ===

Peer review is a great way for students to learn about how well they have developed their application. However, sometimes, the peer reviews may not be thorough and the team/person's work reviewed might not reflect the actual status of the development. By letting course staff perform reviews as well, the reviewer and the reviewee both benefit, improving the overall learning experience. Currently, there exists no method for the instructor/TA to perform reviews of assignments submitted by the students. Hence this is what this project aims at, allowing instructor/TA to perform reviews.

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li(zli82)
* Hao Zhang (hzhang62)

== Project Design Philosophy ==
Our project aims at enabling the instructor/TA to review the submissions using the same form that a student uses while peer-reviewing. For this, our implementation has been divided into 3 parts, and can be described as follows:
<ol>
<li>The first part involves the primary functionality of letting the staff perform a review on students submission.</li>
<li>The second part involves allowing the students to identify from their end, which review has been performed by an instructor/TA. This will help students improve their project as the opinions presented by a staff member would be valid.</li>
<li>Third, we plan to enable the instructor/TA to do review instead of assign grade in the review round. After the review Round, the review review session will be closed and replaced with assigning grade interface</li>
</ol>

[[File:E2086 flowchart1.png]]
[[File:E2086 flowchart2.png]]

== Issue ==
=== Plan of Work ===
*In the assignment page of the Expertiza, If an instructor or a TA is a participant in an assignment, then the instructor should be able to review any team that has submitted the assignment.
*In order to see who is participating in the assignment, click on the “Add participants” icon (the one with the + sign and a picture of a person). That will bring up a list of participants and allow you to add more participants.
*Make the instructor and/or TAs participants, and then they should be allowed to do reviews.
[[File:E2086 assignment.png|900px]]

*Then, to perform reviews, the instructor/TA would click on the clipboard-like “View submissions” icon, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 view submission.png|900px]]

*A list of submissions would be pulled up:
[[File:E2086 submission.png|900px]]
*If the last due date for the assignment has not passed, then the “Assign grade” link should be changed to “Perform review”, and when clicked on, it should pull up a review page for the team, showing their submitted work at the top, as a review page normally does.

*Also, it would be more clear if we could mark the instructor's review with something special on the reviews page, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 review.png|700px]]

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

File:E2086 flowchart2.png

2020-10-22T21:11:46Z

Czhou6:

File:E2086 flowchart1.png

2020-10-22T21:11:13Z

Czhou6:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-22T20:51:31Z

Czhou6: /* Issues need to be fixed */

== Project Index ==
* Deployment Link:

* Github Repository:
https://github.com/joeyzhou826/expertiza
* Github Pull Request:

* Video Link:

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Why This Project ===

Peer review is a great way for students to learn about how well they have developed their application. However, sometimes, the peer reviews may not be thorough and the team/person's work reviewed might not reflect the actual status of the development. By letting course staff perform reviews as well, the reviewer and the reviewee both benefit, improving the overall learning experience. Currently, there exists no method for the instructor/TA to perform reviews of assignments submitted by the students. Hence this is what this project aims at, allowing instructor/TA to perform reviews.

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li(zli82)
* Hao Zhang (hzhang62)

== Project Design Philosophy ==
Our project aims at enabling the instructor/TA to review the submissions using the same form that a student uses while peer-reviewing. For this, our implementation has been divided into 3 parts, and can be described as follows:
<ol>
<li>The first part involves the primary functionality of letting the staff perform a review on students submission.</li>
<li>The second part involves allowing the students to identify from their end, which review has been performed by an instructor/TA. This will help students improve their project as the opinions presented by a staff member would be valid.</li>
<li>Third, we plan to enable the instructor/TA to do review instead of assign grade in the review round. After the review Round, the review review session will be closed and replaced with assigning grade interface</li>
</ol>

== Issue ==
=== Plan of Work ===
*In the assignment page of the Expertiza, If an instructor or a TA is a participant in an assignment, then the instructor should be able to review any team that has submitted the assignment.
*In order to see who is participating in the assignment, click on the “Add participants” icon (the one with the + sign and a picture of a person). That will bring up a list of participants and allow you to add more participants.
*Make the instructor and/or TAs participants, and then they should be allowed to do reviews.
[[File:E2086 assignment.png|900px]]

*Then, to perform reviews, the instructor/TA would click on the clipboard-like “View submissions” icon, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 view submission.png|900px]]

*A list of submissions would be pulled up:
[[File:E2086 submission.png|900px]]
*If the last due date for the assignment has not passed, then the “Assign grade” link should be changed to “Perform review”, and when clicked on, it should pull up a review page for the team, showing their submitted work at the top, as a review page normally does.

*Also, it would be more clear if we could mark the instructor's review with something special on the reviews page, as shown below.
[[File:E2086 review.png|700px]]

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

File:E2086 review.png

2020-10-22T20:51:15Z

Czhou6:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-22T20:45:46Z

Czhou6: /* Issues need to be fixed */

== Project Index ==
* Deployment Link:

* Github Repository:
https://github.com/joeyzhou826/expertiza
* Github Pull Request:

* Video Link:

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Why This Project ===

Peer review is a great way for students to learn about how well they have developed their application. However, sometimes, the peer reviews may not be thorough and the team/person's work reviewed might not reflect the actual status of the development. By letting course staff perform reviews as well, the reviewer and the reviewee both benefit, improving the overall learning experience. Currently, there exists no method for the instructor/TA to perform reviews of assignments submitted by the students. Hence this is what this project aims at, allowing instructor/TA to perform reviews.

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li(zli82)
* Hao Zhang (hzhang62)

== Project Design Philosophy ==
Our project aims at enabling the instructor/TA to review the submissions using the same form that a student uses while peer-reviewing. For this, our implementation has been divided into 3 parts, and can be described as follows:
<ol>
<li>The first part involves the primary functionality of letting the staff perform a review on students submission.</li>
<li>The second part involves allowing the students to identify from their end, which review has been performed by an instructor/TA. This will help students improve their project as the opinions presented by a staff member would be valid.</li>
<li>Third, we plan to enable the instructor/TA to do review instead of assign grade in the review round. After the review Round, the review review session will be closed and replaced with assigning grade interface</li>
</ol>

== Issue ==
=== Issues need to be fixed ===
[[File:E2086 assignment.png|900px]]
[[File:E2086 view submission.png|900px]]
[[File:E2086 submission.png|900px]]

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-22T20:45:26Z

Czhou6: /* Issue */

== Project Index ==
* Deployment Link:

* Github Repository:
https://github.com/joeyzhou826/expertiza
* Github Pull Request:

* Video Link:

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Why This Project ===

Peer review is a great way for students to learn about how well they have developed their application. However, sometimes, the peer reviews may not be thorough and the team/person's work reviewed might not reflect the actual status of the development. By letting course staff perform reviews as well, the reviewer and the reviewee both benefit, improving the overall learning experience. Currently, there exists no method for the instructor/TA to perform reviews of assignments submitted by the students. Hence this is what this project aims at, allowing instructor/TA to perform reviews.

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li(zli82)
* Hao Zhang (hzhang62)

== Project Design Philosophy ==
Our project aims at enabling the instructor/TA to review the submissions using the same form that a student uses while peer-reviewing. For this, our implementation has been divided into 3 parts, and can be described as follows:
<ol>
<li>The first part involves the primary functionality of letting the staff perform a review on students submission.</li>
<li>The second part involves allowing the students to identify from their end, which review has been performed by an instructor/TA. This will help students improve their project as the opinions presented by a staff member would be valid.</li>
<li>Third, we plan to enable the instructor/TA to do review instead of assign grade in the review round. After the review Round, the review review session will be closed and replaced with assigning grade interface</li>
</ol>

== Issue ==
=== Issues need to be fixed ===
[[File:E2086 assignment.png|1200px]]
[[File:E2086 view submission.png|1200px]]
[[File:E2086 submission.png|1200px]]

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

File:E2086 view submission.png

2020-10-22T20:45:13Z

Czhou6:

File:E2086 assignment.png

2020-10-22T20:44:49Z

Czhou6:

File:E2086 submission.png

2020-10-22T20:43:53Z

Czhou6:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-19T19:35:17Z

Czhou6:

== Project Index ==
* Deployment Link:

* Github Repository:

* Github Pull Request:

* Video Link:

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li
* Hao Zhang

== Project Design Philosophy ==

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-19T19:33:08Z

Czhou6:

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li
* Hao Zhang

== Project Design Philosophy ==

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Reference & Links ==
=== Previous Implementation ===
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-19T19:30:43Z

Czhou6:

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li
* Hao Zhang

== Project Design Philosophy ==

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Previous Implementation ==
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

== Reference & Links ==

for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-19T19:30:16Z

Czhou6: /* Project Background */

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews
for more information about this project, please visit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li
* Hao Zhang

== Project Design Philosophy ==

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Previous Implementation ==
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-19T19:29:33Z

Czhou6: /* Recommandation from mentor */

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li
* Hao Zhang

== Project Design Philosophy ==

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Previous Implementation ==
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-19T19:28:55Z

Czhou6: /* Project Background */

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews

=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li
* Hao Zhang

== Project Design Philosophy ==

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===

=== Recommandation from mentor ===
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Previous Implementation ==
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews

2020-10-19T19:28:20Z

Czhou6: Created page with " == Project Background == * Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews * === Primary Goal of this Project=== This project aims to allow ins..."

== Project Background ==

* Expertiza Project - E2086 : Let course staff as well as students do reviews
*
=== Primary Goal of this Project===

This project aims to allow instructors to submit reviews of student work, using the same review form that students use to do reviews

=== Files Involved ===

list_submissions.html.erb

_calibration_report.html.erb

response.html.erb

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Zhuolin Li
* Hao Zhang

== Project Design Philosophy ==

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===

=== Recommandation from mentor ===
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qphGGe8imRNufw2EhTZRqgs-I6XiQX74_I3UiwpPs5M/edit# Project Lists]

== Test Plan ==

== Refactor & Code Modification ==

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==

== Previous Implementation ==
This project was done by Team E1985 on Fall 2019 with the following work:

Expertiza wiki: http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1985._Let_course_staff_and_students_do_reviews

Github Pull Request: https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1631

Github repository: https://github.com/Matrawick/expertiza

Youtube screencast: https://youtu.be/kLfZ22vlu30

=== Comments From Mentor ===
* Code for testing whether a reviewer is a staff member is put into an unrelated class (same method already exists elsewhere in system).

* There is a long code clone because the process of creating a mapping and a review is not quite the same as when the reviewer is a non-instructor; a lot of checks needed in that case are not needed here. But the current code should have been refactored to put the common code into another method.

* One test has been removed because it broke the build, & was evid. unrelated to their functionality.

* The commit was too messy; if this had been merged, it would have required refactoring.

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020

2020-10-19T19:16:23Z

Czhou6: /* Final Project Design Documents */

== Writing Assignments ==
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2068. Refactor quiz_questionnaires_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2062. Add test cases to review_mapping_helper.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2063. Refactor tree-display.js and tree_display_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2064. Refactor reputation_web_service_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2065. Fix view in student_task/list page]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2066. Refactor lottery controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2067. Refactor student_teams_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2073. Refactor course_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2057. Restrict TAs’ ability to change their own grade and limit file-size upload]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2052. Remove multiple topics at a time]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2052. Remove multiple topics at a time]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2056 Account_Request_Controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2059. Email notification to reviewers and instructors.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2058. Two issues related to assignment management]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2071. Improve assessment360_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2054. Auto generate submission directory names based on assignment names]]

== Final Project Design Documents ==
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2078. Improve self-review Link peer review & self-review to derive grades]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2086. Let course staff as well as students do reviews]]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-19T03:18:01Z

Czhou6:

== Project Background ==

A response is the object that is created when someone fills out a review rubric, such as when one writes a review, gives feedback to a reviewer, or fills out a survey. Responses to the individual rubric items are kept in Answer objects; each Answer object has a response_id to say what Response it is part of. Since response_controller needs to work with many kinds of responses, its code is pretty general. It is not the worst controller in the system, but it would be much clearer if its method names were more descriptive of what they do.

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Xinran Li (xli56)

=== Goal of this Project===
This project tries to modify and refactor the response_controller.rb in a more clear way

=== Files Involved ===

response_controller.rb

response.rb

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===
* def assign_instance_vars
* def scores
* def new
* def set_questionnaire
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response
* def show_calibration_results_for_students

=== Recommandation from mentor ===
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LCl_4jGFEQSz09c9TK1fVlVmOiGJ38OEVMxAsjAcEec/edit# Project Lists]
* def assign_instance_vars : This name could be more specific.
* def scores : This should be a model method (in response.rb)! It is all calculation.
* def new : This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review. It would make sense to have a model method that tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted. Then the code here would just call that function. It would be a lot clearer what the new method is doing. set_content(new_response = false) also plays a role in this calculation. Perhaps this method should also be included in the refactoring, for the sake of clarity of the resulting code.
* def set_questionnaire : Badly named; what kind of questionnaire and why? The name should be a lot clearer.
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response : Badly named, no comments, not at all clear. The logic is not like set_questionnaire. Rename, refactor for clarity, and add comments as appropriate.
* def show_calibration_results_for_student : This method makes about five db accesses. Can it be broken into 2 methods, with the business logic moved to response.rb?

== Test Plan ==

Since most of the method involved in our project is private methods and all of the public methods in response controller were already tested.

Thus, we will focus on testing methods we created in the model class: response.rb

spec/models/response_spec.rb will be edit in order to test our methods

== Refactor & Code Modification ==
We did the following refactor to make this method more clear:

=== METHOD: def assign_instance_vars ===

*the instance variables are actually action handles to the views from controller including "new" and "edit", thus refactoring method name to assign_action_parameters would be better to understand what this method is trying to do.
*This method is a private helper method and is used in new and edit methods to set the action parameters for the new and edit actions

[[File:E2070 assign instance.png|1200px]]

*After renaming, the method became more clear of what it's doing

[[File:E2070 action parameters.png]]

=== METHOD: def scores ===

*This method was already defined in other classes and is useless in the current class, thus remove it would be a reasonable choice.

[[File:E2070 Scores.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is false, which means that the object was triggered by an existing response. In the method set_questionnaire, the line of code that “@questionnaire = @response.questionnaire_by_answer(answer)”, which is looking up the questionnaire answered by this existing response. Therefore, refactoring the method name to find_quesetionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire_for_new_response===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is true, which means that the object was triggered by a new response. In the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method, the "cast" statement informs us that the new questionnaire are created based on the types or Reviewers, such as Review, Metareview, Teammate Review and so on. Therefore, refactoring the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method to create_new_questionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire for new.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def show_calibration_results_for_student ===
* This method shows the result of expert review for reviewer after teacher or TA submit the calibration by editing the assignment.
* The method makes about five database accesses and the code is quite messy and thus break it into 2 methods with the business logic moved to response.rb would be a good way to make the code in controller cleaner.

[[File:E2070 calibration controller.png|1200px]]

* The method get_questions_from_assignment is the part that's inside the model class and contains logic of mapping reviews with assignments in the questionnaire and return questions in the joined table
[[File:E2070 calibration model.png|1200px]]

====show_calibration page ====
[[File:E2070 calibration student view.png|900px]]

====Teacher's action to triggle this function ====
[[File:E2070 calibration edit assignment.png|900px]]

====After calibration function is activated====
[[File:E2070 expert review.png|900px]]

===METHOD: def new ===
*This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review.
*So we break the new method into two methods: new and get_most_recent_response and put the logic into the response controller class.
*The method get_most_recent_response in the model class tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted and in the controller this method was called to get the newest response.
[[File:E2070 new.png|1200px]]

* The new method after refactoring, now the code is quite clear and with only one appearance of variable "@response"
[[File:E2070 new method.png|1200px]]

====Create new response in the webpage====
[[File:E2070 request a new review.png|900px]]

====After NEW action====
[[File:E2070 new method called to generate new response.png|900px]]

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Rspec Test Cases ==
Most of the method involved in our project is private methods and all of the public methods in response controller were already tested.

Thus, we will focus on testing methods we created in the model class: response.rb

spec/models/response_spec.rb will be edit in order to test our refactored methods

[[File:Rspec test.png|900px]]

File:Rspec test.png

2020-10-19T03:15:04Z

Czhou6: Czhou6 uploaded a new version of File:Rspec test.png

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-19T03:13:18Z

Czhou6: /* Test Plan */

== Project Background ==

A response is the object that is created when someone fills out a review rubric, such as when one writes a review, gives feedback to a reviewer, or fills out a survey. Responses to the individual rubric items are kept in Answer objects; each Answer object has a response_id to say what Response it is part of. Since response_controller needs to work with many kinds of responses, its code is pretty general. It is not the worst controller in the system, but it would be much clearer if its method names were more descriptive of what they do.

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Xinran Li (xli56)

=== Goal of this Project===
This project tries to modify and refactor the response_controller.rb in a more clear way

=== Files Involved ===

response_controller.rb

response.rb

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===
* def assign_instance_vars
* def scores
* def new
* def set_questionnaire
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response
* def show_calibration_results_for_students

=== Recommandation from mentor ===
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LCl_4jGFEQSz09c9TK1fVlVmOiGJ38OEVMxAsjAcEec/edit# Project Lists]
* def assign_instance_vars : This name could be more specific.
* def scores : This should be a model method (in response.rb)! It is all calculation.
* def new : This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review. It would make sense to have a model method that tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted. Then the code here would just call that function. It would be a lot clearer what the new method is doing. set_content(new_response = false) also plays a role in this calculation. Perhaps this method should also be included in the refactoring, for the sake of clarity of the resulting code.
* def set_questionnaire : Badly named; what kind of questionnaire and why? The name should be a lot clearer.
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response : Badly named, no comments, not at all clear. The logic is not like set_questionnaire. Rename, refactor for clarity, and add comments as appropriate.
* def show_calibration_results_for_student : This method makes about five db accesses. Can it be broken into 2 methods, with the business logic moved to response.rb?

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Test Plan ==

Since most of the method involved in our project is private methods and all of the public methods in response controller were already tested.

Thus, we will focus on testing methods we created in the model class: response.rb

spec/models/response_spec.rb will be edit in order to test our methods

== Refactor & Code Modification ==
We did the following refactor to make this method more clear:

=== METHOD: def assign_instance_vars ===

*the instance variables are actually action handles to the views from controller including "new" and "edit", thus refactoring method name to assign_action_parameters would be better to understand what this method is trying to do.
*This method is a private helper method and is used in new and edit methods to set the action parameters for the new and edit actions

[[File:E2070 assign instance.png|1200px]]

*After renaming, the method became more clear of what it's doing

[[File:E2070 action parameters.png]]

=== METHOD: def scores ===

*This method was already defined in other classes and is useless in the current class, thus remove it would be a reasonable choice.

[[File:E2070 Scores.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is false, which means that the object was triggered by an existing response. In the method set_questionnaire, the line of code that “@questionnaire = @response.questionnaire_by_answer(answer)”, which is looking up the questionnaire answered by this existing response. Therefore, refactoring the method name to find_quesetionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire_for_new_response===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is true, which means that the object was triggered by a new response. In the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method, the "cast" statement informs us that the new questionnaire are created based on the types or Reviewers, such as Review, Metareview, Teammate Review and so on. Therefore, refactoring the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method to create_new_questionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire for new.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def show_calibration_results_for_student ===
* This method shows the result of expert review for reviewer after teacher or TA submit the calibration by editing the assignment.
* The method makes about five database accesses and the code is quite messy and thus break it into 2 methods with the business logic moved to response.rb would be a good way to make the code in controller cleaner.

[[File:E2070 calibration controller.png|1200px]]

* The method get_questions_from_assignment is the part that's inside the model class and contains logic of mapping reviews with assignments in the questionnaire and return questions in the joined table
[[File:E2070 calibration model.png|1200px]]

====show_calibration page ====
[[File:E2070 calibration student view.png|900px]]

====Teacher's action to triggle this function ====
[[File:E2070 calibration edit assignment.png|900px]]

====After calibration function is activated====
[[File:E2070 expert review.png|900px]]

===METHOD: def new ===
*This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review.
*So we break the new method into two methods: new and get_most_recent_response and put the logic into the response controller class.
*The method get_most_recent_response in the model class tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted and in the controller this method was called to get the newest response.
[[File:E2070 new.png|1200px]]

* The new method after refactoring, now the code is quite clear and with only one appearance of variable "@response"
[[File:E2070 new method.png|1200px]]

====Create new response in the webpage====
[[File:E2070 request a new review.png|900px]]

====After NEW action====
[[File:E2070 new method called to generate new response.png|900px]]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-19T03:11:51Z

Czhou6: /* Test Plan */

== Project Background ==

A response is the object that is created when someone fills out a review rubric, such as when one writes a review, gives feedback to a reviewer, or fills out a survey. Responses to the individual rubric items are kept in Answer objects; each Answer object has a response_id to say what Response it is part of. Since response_controller needs to work with many kinds of responses, its code is pretty general. It is not the worst controller in the system, but it would be much clearer if its method names were more descriptive of what they do.

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Xinran Li (xli56)

=== Goal of this Project===
This project tries to modify and refactor the response_controller.rb in a more clear way

=== Files Involved ===

response_controller.rb

response.rb

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===
* def assign_instance_vars
* def scores
* def new
* def set_questionnaire
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response
* def show_calibration_results_for_students

=== Recommandation from mentor ===
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LCl_4jGFEQSz09c9TK1fVlVmOiGJ38OEVMxAsjAcEec/edit# Project Lists]
* def assign_instance_vars : This name could be more specific.
* def scores : This should be a model method (in response.rb)! It is all calculation.
* def new : This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review. It would make sense to have a model method that tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted. Then the code here would just call that function. It would be a lot clearer what the new method is doing. set_content(new_response = false) also plays a role in this calculation. Perhaps this method should also be included in the refactoring, for the sake of clarity of the resulting code.
* def set_questionnaire : Badly named; what kind of questionnaire and why? The name should be a lot clearer.
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response : Badly named, no comments, not at all clear. The logic is not like set_questionnaire. Rename, refactor for clarity, and add comments as appropriate.
* def show_calibration_results_for_student : This method makes about five db accesses. Can it be broken into 2 methods, with the business logic moved to response.rb?

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Test Plan ==

Since most of the method involved in our project is private methods and all of the public methods in response controller were already tested.

Thus, we will focus on testing methods we created in the model class: response.rb

== Refactor & Code Modification ==
We did the following refactor to make this method more clear:

=== METHOD: def assign_instance_vars ===

*the instance variables are actually action handles to the views from controller including "new" and "edit", thus refactoring method name to assign_action_parameters would be better to understand what this method is trying to do.
*This method is a private helper method and is used in new and edit methods to set the action parameters for the new and edit actions

[[File:E2070 assign instance.png|1200px]]

*After renaming, the method became more clear of what it's doing

[[File:E2070 action parameters.png]]

=== METHOD: def scores ===

*This method was already defined in other classes and is useless in the current class, thus remove it would be a reasonable choice.

[[File:E2070 Scores.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is false, which means that the object was triggered by an existing response. In the method set_questionnaire, the line of code that “@questionnaire = @response.questionnaire_by_answer(answer)”, which is looking up the questionnaire answered by this existing response. Therefore, refactoring the method name to find_quesetionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire_for_new_response===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is true, which means that the object was triggered by a new response. In the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method, the "cast" statement informs us that the new questionnaire are created based on the types or Reviewers, such as Review, Metareview, Teammate Review and so on. Therefore, refactoring the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method to create_new_questionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire for new.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def show_calibration_results_for_student ===
* This method shows the result of expert review for reviewer after teacher or TA submit the calibration by editing the assignment.
* The method makes about five database accesses and the code is quite messy and thus break it into 2 methods with the business logic moved to response.rb would be a good way to make the code in controller cleaner.

[[File:E2070 calibration controller.png|1200px]]

* The method get_questions_from_assignment is the part that's inside the model class and contains logic of mapping reviews with assignments in the questionnaire and return questions in the joined table
[[File:E2070 calibration model.png|1200px]]

====show_calibration page ====
[[File:E2070 calibration student view.png|900px]]

====Teacher's action to triggle this function ====
[[File:E2070 calibration edit assignment.png|900px]]

====After calibration function is activated====
[[File:E2070 expert review.png|900px]]

===METHOD: def new ===
*This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review.
*So we break the new method into two methods: new and get_most_recent_response and put the logic into the response controller class.
*The method get_most_recent_response in the model class tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted and in the controller this method was called to get the newest response.
[[File:E2070 new.png|1200px]]

* The new method after refactoring, now the code is quite clear and with only one appearance of variable "@response"
[[File:E2070 new method.png|1200px]]

====Create new response in the webpage====
[[File:E2070 request a new review.png|900px]]

====After NEW action====
[[File:E2070 new method called to generate new response.png|900px]]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-19T02:29:24Z

Czhou6: /* Running Tests */

== Project Background ==

A response is the object that is created when someone fills out a review rubric, such as when one writes a review, gives feedback to a reviewer, or fills out a survey. Responses to the individual rubric items are kept in Answer objects; each Answer object has a response_id to say what Response it is part of. Since response_controller needs to work with many kinds of responses, its code is pretty general. It is not the worst controller in the system, but it would be much clearer if its method names were more descriptive of what they do.

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Xinran Li (xli56)

=== Goal of this Project===
This project tries to modify and refactor the response_controller.rb in a more clear way

=== Files Involved ===

response_controller.rb

response.rb

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===
* def assign_instance_vars
* def scores
* def new
* def set_questionnaire
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response
* def show_calibration_results_for_students

=== Recommandation from mentor ===
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LCl_4jGFEQSz09c9TK1fVlVmOiGJ38OEVMxAsjAcEec/edit# Project Lists]
* def assign_instance_vars : This name could be more specific.
* def scores : This should be a model method (in response.rb)! It is all calculation.
* def new : This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review. It would make sense to have a model method that tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted. Then the code here would just call that function. It would be a lot clearer what the new method is doing. set_content(new_response = false) also plays a role in this calculation. Perhaps this method should also be included in the refactoring, for the sake of clarity of the resulting code.
* def set_questionnaire : Badly named; what kind of questionnaire and why? The name should be a lot clearer.
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response : Badly named, no comments, not at all clear. The logic is not like set_questionnaire. Rename, refactor for clarity, and add comments as appropriate.
* def show_calibration_results_for_student : This method makes about five db accesses. Can it be broken into 2 methods, with the business logic moved to response.rb?

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Test Plan ==

For this project,

== Refactor & Code Modification ==
We did the following refactor to make this method more clear:

=== METHOD: def assign_instance_vars ===

*the instance variables are actually action handles to the views from controller including "new" and "edit", thus refactoring method name to assign_action_parameters would be better to understand what this method is trying to do.
*This method is a private helper method and is used in new and edit methods to set the action parameters for the new and edit actions

[[File:E2070 assign instance.png|1200px]]

*After renaming, the method became more clear of what it's doing

[[File:E2070 action parameters.png]]

=== METHOD: def scores ===

*This method was already defined in other classes and is useless in the current class, thus remove it would be a reasonable choice.

[[File:E2070 Scores.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is false, which means that the object was triggered by an existing response. In the method set_questionnaire, the line of code that “@questionnaire = @response.questionnaire_by_answer(answer)”, which is looking up the questionnaire answered by this existing response. Therefore, refactoring the method name to find_quesetionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire_for_new_response===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is true, which means that the object was triggered by a new response. In the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method, the "cast" statement informs us that the new questionnaire are created based on the types or Reviewers, such as Review, Metareview, Teammate Review and so on. Therefore, refactoring the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method to create_new_questionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire for new.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def show_calibration_results_for_student ===
* This method shows the result of expert review for reviewer after teacher or TA submit the calibration by editing the assignment.
* The method makes about five database accesses and the code is quite messy and thus break it into 2 methods with the business logic moved to response.rb would be a good way to make the code in controller cleaner.

[[File:E2070 calibration controller.png|1200px]]

* The method get_questions_from_assignment is the part that's inside the model class and contains logic of mapping reviews with assignments in the questionnaire and return questions in the joined table
[[File:E2070 calibration model.png|1200px]]

====show_calibration page ====
[[File:E2070 calibration student view.png|900px]]

====Teacher's action to triggle this function ====
[[File:E2070 calibration edit assignment.png|900px]]

====After calibration function is activated====
[[File:E2070 expert review.png|900px]]

===METHOD: def new ===
*This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review.
*So we break the new method into two methods: new and get_most_recent_response and put the logic into the response controller class.
*The method get_most_recent_response in the model class tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted and in the controller this method was called to get the newest response.
[[File:E2070 new.png|1200px]]

* The new method after refactoring, now the code is quite clear and with only one appearance of variable "@response"
[[File:E2070 new method.png|1200px]]

====Create new response in the webpage====
[[File:E2070 request a new review.png|900px]]

====After NEW action====
[[File:E2070 new method called to generate new response.png|900px]]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-19T00:50:35Z

Czhou6:

== Project Background ==

A response is the object that is created when someone fills out a review rubric, such as when one writes a review, gives feedback to a reviewer, or fills out a survey. Responses to the individual rubric items are kept in Answer objects; each Answer object has a response_id to say what Response it is part of. Since response_controller needs to work with many kinds of responses, its code is pretty general. It is not the worst controller in the system, but it would be much clearer if its method names were more descriptive of what they do.

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Xinran Li (xli56)

=== Goal of this Project===
This project tries to modify and refactor the response_controller.rb in a more clear way

=== Files Involved ===

response_controller.rb

response.rb

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===
* def assign_instance_vars
* def scores
* def new
* def set_questionnaire
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response
* def show_calibration_results_for_students

=== Recommandation from mentor ===
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LCl_4jGFEQSz09c9TK1fVlVmOiGJ38OEVMxAsjAcEec/edit# Project Lists]
* def assign_instance_vars : This name could be more specific.
* def scores : This should be a model method (in response.rb)! It is all calculation.
* def new : This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review. It would make sense to have a model method that tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted. Then the code here would just call that function. It would be a lot clearer what the new method is doing. set_content(new_response = false) also plays a role in this calculation. Perhaps this method should also be included in the refactoring, for the sake of clarity of the resulting code.
* def set_questionnaire : Badly named; what kind of questionnaire and why? The name should be a lot clearer.
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response : Badly named, no comments, not at all clear. The logic is not like set_questionnaire. Rename, refactor for clarity, and add comments as appropriate.
* def show_calibration_results_for_student : This method makes about five db accesses. Can it be broken into 2 methods, with the business logic moved to response.rb?

== Running Tests ==
<pre>
rspec spec/controllers/response_controller_spec.rb
rspec spec/models/response_spec.rb
</pre>

== Test Plan ==

For this project,

== Refactor & Code Modification ==
We did the following refactor to make this method more clear:

=== METHOD: def assign_instance_vars ===

*the instance variables are actually action handles to the views from controller including "new" and "edit", thus refactoring method name to assign_action_parameters would be better to understand what this method is trying to do.
*This method is a private helper method and is used in new and edit methods to set the action parameters for the new and edit actions

[[File:E2070 assign instance.png|1200px]]

*After renaming, the method became more clear of what it's doing

[[File:E2070 action parameters.png]]

=== METHOD: def scores ===

*This method was already defined in other classes and is useless in the current class, thus remove it would be a reasonable choice.

[[File:E2070 Scores.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is false, which means that the object was triggered by an existing response. In the method set_questionnaire, the line of code that “@questionnaire = @response.questionnaire_by_answer(answer)”, which is looking up the questionnaire answered by this existing response. Therefore, refactoring the method name to find_quesetionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire_for_new_response===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is true, which means that the object was triggered by a new response. In the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method, the "cast" statement informs us that the new questionnaire are created based on the types or Reviewers, such as Review, Metareview, Teammate Review and so on. Therefore, refactoring the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method to create_new_questionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire for new.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def show_calibration_results_for_student ===
* This method shows the result of expert review for reviewer after teacher or TA submit the calibration by editing the assignment.
* The method makes about five database accesses and the code is quite messy and thus break it into 2 methods with the business logic moved to response.rb would be a good way to make the code in controller cleaner.

[[File:E2070 calibration controller.png|1200px]]

* The method get_questions_from_assignment is the part that's inside the model class and contains logic of mapping reviews with assignments in the questionnaire and return questions in the joined table
[[File:E2070 calibration model.png|1200px]]

====show_calibration page ====
[[File:E2070 calibration student view.png|900px]]

====Teacher's action to triggle this function ====
[[File:E2070 calibration edit assignment.png|900px]]

====After calibration function is activated====
[[File:E2070 expert review.png|900px]]

===METHOD: def new ===
*This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review.
*So we break the new method into two methods: new and get_most_recent_response and put the logic into the response controller class.
*The method get_most_recent_response in the model class tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted and in the controller this method was called to get the newest response.
[[File:E2070 new.png|1200px]]

* The new method after refactoring, now the code is quite clear and with only one appearance of variable "@response"
[[File:E2070 new method.png|1200px]]

====Create new response in the webpage====
[[File:E2070 request a new review.png|900px]]

====After NEW action====
[[File:E2070 new method called to generate new response.png|900px]]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020

2020-10-16T00:54:55Z

Czhou6:

* [[Dummy URL]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2068. Refactor quiz_questionnaires_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2062. Add test cases to review_mapping_helper.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2063. Refactor tree-display.js and tree_display_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2064. Refactor reputation_web_service_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2065. Fix view in student_task/list page]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2066. Refactor lottery controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2067. Refactor student_teams_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2073. Refactor course_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2057. Restrict TAs’ ability to change their own grade and limit file-size upload]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2052. Remove multiple topics at a time]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2052. Remove multiple topics at a time]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2056 Account_Request_Controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2059. Email notification to reviewers and instructors.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2058. Two issues related to assignment management]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2071. Improve assessment360_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2054. Auto generate submission directory names based on assignment names]]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020

2020-10-16T00:54:05Z

Czhou6:

* [[Dummy URL]]
* [[CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2070._Refactor_response_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2068. Refactor quiz_questionnaires_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2062. Add test cases to review_mapping_helper.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2063. Refactor tree-display.js and tree_display_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2064. Refactor reputation_web_service_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2065. Fix view in student_task/list page]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2066. Refactor lottery controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2067. Refactor student_teams_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2073. Refactor course_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2057. Restrict TAs’ ability to change their own grade and limit file-size upload]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2052. Remove multiple topics at a time]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2052. Remove multiple topics at a time]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2056 Account_Request_Controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2059. Email notification to reviewers and instructors.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2058. Two issues related to assignment management]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2071. Improve assessment360_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2054. Auto generate submission directory names based on assignment names]]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020

2020-10-16T00:53:45Z

Czhou6:

* [[Dummy URL]]
* [[ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2070._Refactor_response_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2068. Refactor quiz_questionnaires_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2062. Add test cases to review_mapping_helper.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2063. Refactor tree-display.js and tree_display_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2064. Refactor reputation_web_service_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2065. Fix view in student_task/list page]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2066. Refactor lottery controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2067. Refactor student_teams_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2073. Refactor course_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2057. Restrict TAs’ ability to change their own grade and limit file-size upload]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2052. Remove multiple topics at a time]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2052. Remove multiple topics at a time]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2056 Account_Request_Controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2059. Email notification to reviewers and instructors.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2058. Two issues related to assignment management]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2071. Improve assessment360_controller.rb]]
* [[CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2054. Auto generate submission directory names based on assignment names]]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-14T16:24:39Z

Czhou6: /* METHOD: def new */

== Project Background ==

A response is the object that is created when someone fills out a review rubric, such as when one writes a review, gives feedback to a reviewer, or fills out a survey. Responses to the individual rubric items are kept in Answer objects; each Answer object has a response_id to say what Response it is part of. Since response_controller needs to work with many kinds of responses, its code is pretty general. It is not the worst controller in the system, but it would be much clearer if its method names were more descriptive of what they do.

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Xinran Li (xli56)

=== Goal of this Project===
This project tries to modify and refactor the response_controller.rb in a more clear way

=== Files Involved ===

response_controller.rb

response.rb

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===
* def assign_instance_vars
* def scores
* def new
* def set_questionnaire
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response
* def show_calibration_results_for_students

=== Recommandation from mentor ===
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LCl_4jGFEQSz09c9TK1fVlVmOiGJ38OEVMxAsjAcEec/edit# Project Lists]
* def assign_instance_vars : This name could be more specific.
* def scores : This should be a model method (in response.rb)! It is all calculation.
* def new : This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review. It would make sense to have a model method that tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted. Then the code here would just call that function. It would be a lot clearer what the new method is doing. set_content(new_response = false) also plays a role in this calculation. Perhaps this method should also be included in the refactoring, for the sake of clarity of the resulting code.
* def set_questionnaire : Badly named; what kind of questionnaire and why? The name should be a lot clearer.
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response : Badly named, no comments, not at all clear. The logic is not like set_questionnaire. Rename, refactor for clarity, and add comments as appropriate.
* def show_calibration_results_for_student : This method makes about five db accesses. Can it be broken into 2 methods, with the business logic moved to response.rb?

== Refactor & Code Modification ==
We did the following refactor to make this method more clear:

=== METHOD: def assign_instance_vars ===

*the instance variables are actually action handles to the views from controller including "new" and "edit", thus refactoring method name to assign_action_parameters would be better to understand what this method is trying to do.
*This method is a private helper method and is used in new and edit methods to set the action parameters for the new and edit actions

[[File:E2070 assign instance.png|1200px]]

*After renaming, the method became more clear of what it's doing

[[File:E2070 action parameters.png]]

=== METHOD: def scores ===

*This method was already defined in other classes and is useless in the current class, thus remove it would be a reasonable choice.

[[File:E2070 Scores.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is false, which means that the object was triggered by an existing response. In the method set_questionnaire, the line of code that “@questionnaire = @response.questionnaire_by_answer(answer)”, which is looking up the questionnaire answered by this existing response. Therefore, refactoring the method name to find_quesetionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire_for_new_response===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is true, which means that the object was triggered by a new response. In the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method, the "cast" statement informs us that the new questionnaire are created based on the types or Reviewers, such as Review, Metareview, Teammate Review and so on. Therefore, refactoring the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method to create_new_questionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire for new.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def show_calibration_results_for_student ===
* This method makes about five database accesses and the code is quite messy and thus break it into 2 methods with the business logic moved to response.rb would be a good way to make the code in controller cleaner.

[[File:E2070 calibration controller.png|1200px]]

* The method get_questions_from_assignment is the part that's inside the model class and contains logic of mapping reviews with assignments in the questionnaire and return questions in the joined table
[[File:E2070 calibration model.png|1200px]]

====show_calibration page ====
[[File:E2070 calibration student view.png|900px]]

====Teacher's action to triggle this function ====
[[File:E2070 calibration edit assignment.png|900px]]

====After calibration function is activated====
[[File:E2070 expert review.png|900px]]

===METHOD: def new ===
*This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review.
*So we break the new method into two methods: new and get_most_recent_response and put the logic into the response controller class.
*The method get_most_recent_response in the model class tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted and in the controller this method was called to get the newest response.
[[File:E2070 new.png|1200px]]

* The new method after refactoring, now the code is quite clear and with only one appearance of variable "@response"
[[File:E2070 new method.png|1200px]]

====Create new response in the webpage====
[[File:E2070 request a new review.png|900px]]

====After NEW action====
[[File:E2070 new method called to generate new response.png|900px]]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-14T16:20:47Z

Czhou6: /* METHOD: def new */

== Project Background ==

A response is the object that is created when someone fills out a review rubric, such as when one writes a review, gives feedback to a reviewer, or fills out a survey. Responses to the individual rubric items are kept in Answer objects; each Answer object has a response_id to say what Response it is part of. Since response_controller needs to work with many kinds of responses, its code is pretty general. It is not the worst controller in the system, but it would be much clearer if its method names were more descriptive of what they do.

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Xinran Li (xli56)

=== Goal of this Project===
This project tries to modify and refactor the response_controller.rb in a more clear way

=== Files Involved ===

response_controller.rb

response.rb

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===
* def assign_instance_vars
* def scores
* def new
* def set_questionnaire
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response
* def show_calibration_results_for_students

=== Recommandation from mentor ===
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LCl_4jGFEQSz09c9TK1fVlVmOiGJ38OEVMxAsjAcEec/edit# Project Lists]
* def assign_instance_vars : This name could be more specific.
* def scores : This should be a model method (in response.rb)! It is all calculation.
* def new : This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review. It would make sense to have a model method that tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted. Then the code here would just call that function. It would be a lot clearer what the new method is doing. set_content(new_response = false) also plays a role in this calculation. Perhaps this method should also be included in the refactoring, for the sake of clarity of the resulting code.
* def set_questionnaire : Badly named; what kind of questionnaire and why? The name should be a lot clearer.
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response : Badly named, no comments, not at all clear. The logic is not like set_questionnaire. Rename, refactor for clarity, and add comments as appropriate.
* def show_calibration_results_for_student : This method makes about five db accesses. Can it be broken into 2 methods, with the business logic moved to response.rb?

== Refactor & Code Modification ==
We did the following refactor to make this method more clear:

=== METHOD: def assign_instance_vars ===

*the instance variables are actually action handles to the views from controller including "new" and "edit", thus refactoring method name to assign_action_parameters would be better to understand what this method is trying to do.
*This method is a private helper method and is used in new and edit methods to set the action parameters for the new and edit actions

[[File:E2070 assign instance.png|1200px]]

*After renaming, the method became more clear of what it's doing

[[File:E2070 action parameters.png]]

=== METHOD: def scores ===

*This method was already defined in other classes and is useless in the current class, thus remove it would be a reasonable choice.

[[File:E2070 Scores.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is false, which means that the object was triggered by an existing response. In the method set_questionnaire, the line of code that “@questionnaire = @response.questionnaire_by_answer(answer)”, which is looking up the questionnaire answered by this existing response. Therefore, refactoring the method name to find_quesetionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire_for_new_response===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is true, which means that the object was triggered by a new response. In the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method, the "cast" statement informs us that the new questionnaire are created based on the types or Reviewers, such as Review, Metareview, Teammate Review and so on. Therefore, refactoring the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method to create_new_questionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire for new.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def show_calibration_results_for_student ===
* This method makes about five database accesses and the code is quite messy and thus break it into 2 methods with the business logic moved to response.rb would be a good way to make the code in controller cleaner.

[[File:E2070 calibration controller.png|1200px]]

* The method get_questions_from_assignment is the part that's inside the model class and contains logic of mapping reviews with assignments in the questionnaire and return questions in the joined table
[[File:E2070 calibration model.png|1200px]]

====show_calibration page ====
[[File:E2070 calibration student view.png|900px]]

====Teacher's action to triggle this function ====
[[File:E2070 calibration edit assignment.png|900px]]

====After calibration function is activated====
[[File:E2070 expert review.png|900px]]

===METHOD: def new ===
* We break the new method into two methods and put the logic into the response controller class.
[[File:E2070 new.png|1200px]]

* The new method after refactoring, now the code is quite clear and with only one appearance of variable "@response"
[[File:E2070 new method.png|1200px]]

====Create new response in the webpage====
[[File:E2070 request a new review.png|900px]]

====After NEW action====
[[File:E2070 new method called to generate new response.png|900px]]

File:E2070 new method.png

2020-10-14T16:18:32Z

Czhou6:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-14T16:17:16Z

Czhou6: /* METHOD: def show_calibration_results_for_student */

== Project Background ==

A response is the object that is created when someone fills out a review rubric, such as when one writes a review, gives feedback to a reviewer, or fills out a survey. Responses to the individual rubric items are kept in Answer objects; each Answer object has a response_id to say what Response it is part of. Since response_controller needs to work with many kinds of responses, its code is pretty general. It is not the worst controller in the system, but it would be much clearer if its method names were more descriptive of what they do.

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Xinran Li (xli56)

=== Goal of this Project===
This project tries to modify and refactor the response_controller.rb in a more clear way

=== Files Involved ===

response_controller.rb

response.rb

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===
* def assign_instance_vars
* def scores
* def new
* def set_questionnaire
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response
* def show_calibration_results_for_students

=== Recommandation from mentor ===
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LCl_4jGFEQSz09c9TK1fVlVmOiGJ38OEVMxAsjAcEec/edit# Project Lists]
* def assign_instance_vars : This name could be more specific.
* def scores : This should be a model method (in response.rb)! It is all calculation.
* def new : This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review. It would make sense to have a model method that tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted. Then the code here would just call that function. It would be a lot clearer what the new method is doing. set_content(new_response = false) also plays a role in this calculation. Perhaps this method should also be included in the refactoring, for the sake of clarity of the resulting code.
* def set_questionnaire : Badly named; what kind of questionnaire and why? The name should be a lot clearer.
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response : Badly named, no comments, not at all clear. The logic is not like set_questionnaire. Rename, refactor for clarity, and add comments as appropriate.
* def show_calibration_results_for_student : This method makes about five db accesses. Can it be broken into 2 methods, with the business logic moved to response.rb?

== Refactor & Code Modification ==
We did the following refactor to make this method more clear:

=== METHOD: def assign_instance_vars ===

*the instance variables are actually action handles to the views from controller including "new" and "edit", thus refactoring method name to assign_action_parameters would be better to understand what this method is trying to do.
*This method is a private helper method and is used in new and edit methods to set the action parameters for the new and edit actions

[[File:E2070 assign instance.png|1200px]]

*After renaming, the method became more clear of what it's doing

[[File:E2070 action parameters.png]]

=== METHOD: def scores ===

*This method was already defined in other classes and is useless in the current class, thus remove it would be a reasonable choice.

[[File:E2070 Scores.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is false, which means that the object was triggered by an existing response. In the method set_questionnaire, the line of code that “@questionnaire = @response.questionnaire_by_answer(answer)”, which is looking up the questionnaire answered by this existing response. Therefore, refactoring the method name to find_quesetionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire_for_new_response===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is true, which means that the object was triggered by a new response. In the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method, the "cast" statement informs us that the new questionnaire are created based on the types or Reviewers, such as Review, Metareview, Teammate Review and so on. Therefore, refactoring the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method to create_new_questionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire for new.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def show_calibration_results_for_student ===
* This method makes about five database accesses and the code is quite messy and thus break it into 2 methods with the business logic moved to response.rb would be a good way to make the code in controller cleaner.

[[File:E2070 calibration controller.png|1200px]]

* The method get_questions_from_assignment is the part that's inside the model class and contains logic of mapping reviews with assignments in the questionnaire and return questions in the joined table
[[File:E2070 calibration model.png|1200px]]

====show_calibration page ====
[[File:E2070 calibration student view.png|900px]]

====Teacher's action to triggle this function ====
[[File:E2070 calibration edit assignment.png|900px]]

====After calibration function is activated====
[[File:E2070 expert review.png|900px]]

===METHOD: def new ===
[[File:E2070 new.png|1200px]]

====Create new response====
[[File:E2070 request a new review.png|900px]]

====After NEW action====
[[File:E2070 new method called to generate new response.png|900px]]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-14T16:08:33Z

Czhou6: /* Refactor & Code Modification */

== Project Background ==

A response is the object that is created when someone fills out a review rubric, such as when one writes a review, gives feedback to a reviewer, or fills out a survey. Responses to the individual rubric items are kept in Answer objects; each Answer object has a response_id to say what Response it is part of. Since response_controller needs to work with many kinds of responses, its code is pretty general. It is not the worst controller in the system, but it would be much clearer if its method names were more descriptive of what they do.

=== Project Team Member===

* Chenwei Zhou (czhou6)
* Tianrui Wang (twang33)
* Xinran Li (xli56)

=== Goal of this Project===
This project tries to modify and refactor the response_controller.rb in a more clear way

=== Files Involved ===

response_controller.rb

response.rb

== Issue ==
=== Methods need to be fixed ===
* def assign_instance_vars
* def scores
* def new
* def set_questionnaire
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response
* def show_calibration_results_for_students

=== Recommandation from mentor ===
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LCl_4jGFEQSz09c9TK1fVlVmOiGJ38OEVMxAsjAcEec/edit# Project Lists]
* def assign_instance_vars : This name could be more specific.
* def scores : This should be a model method (in response.rb)! It is all calculation.
* def new : This method contains a complicated condition that determines whether the submission has been updated since the last time it was reviewed. If it has not, then the reviewer can edit his/her previous review. If there has been an update, then the reviewer gets a new review form to “update” the review. It would make sense to have a model method that tests whether there has been a review since the last file or link was submitted. Then the code here would just call that function. It would be a lot clearer what the new method is doing. set_content(new_response = false) also plays a role in this calculation. Perhaps this method should also be included in the refactoring, for the sake of clarity of the resulting code.
* def set_questionnaire : Badly named; what kind of questionnaire and why? The name should be a lot clearer.
* def set_questionnaire_for_new_response : Badly named, no comments, not at all clear. The logic is not like set_questionnaire. Rename, refactor for clarity, and add comments as appropriate.
* def show_calibration_results_for_student : This method makes about five db accesses. Can it be broken into 2 methods, with the business logic moved to response.rb?

== Refactor & Code Modification ==
We did the following refactor to make this method more clear:

=== METHOD: def assign_instance_vars ===

*the instance variables are actually action handles to the views from controller including "new" and "edit", thus refactoring method name to assign_action_parameters would be better to understand what this method is trying to do.
*This method is a private helper method and is used in new and edit methods to set the action parameters for the new and edit actions

[[File:E2070 assign instance.png|1200px]]

*After renaming, the method became more clear of what it's doing

[[File:E2070 action parameters.png]]

=== METHOD: def scores ===

*This method was already defined in other classes and is useless in the current class, thus remove it would be a reasonable choice.

[[File:E2070 Scores.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is false, which means that the object was triggered by an existing response. In the method set_questionnaire, the line of code that “@questionnaire = @response.questionnaire_by_answer(answer)”, which is looking up the questionnaire answered by this existing response. Therefore, refactoring the method name to find_quesetionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def set_questionnaire_for_new_response===

*In the method set_content in response_controller.rb, there is one line of code that "new_response ? set_questionnaire_for_new_response : set_questionnaire". Thus, we can tell the method set_qustionnaire will called when new_response is true, which means that the object was triggered by a new response. In the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method, the "cast" statement informs us that the new questionnaire are created based on the types or Reviewers, such as Review, Metareview, Teammate Review and so on. Therefore, refactoring the set_questionnaire_for_new_response method to create_new_questionnaire would be better to understand.
[[File:E2070 set questionnaire for new.png|1200px]]

===METHOD: def show_calibration_results_for_student ===

[[File:E2070 calibration controller.png|1200px]]
[[File:E2070 calibration model.png|1200px]]

====show_calibration page ====
[[File:E2070 calibration student view.png|900px]]

====Teacher's action to triggle this function ====
[[File:E2070 calibration edit assignment.png|900px]]

====After calibration function is activated====
[[File:E2070 expert review.png|900px]]

===METHOD: def new ===
[[File:E2070 new.png|1200px]]

====Create new response====
[[File:E2070 request a new review.png|900px]]

====After NEW action====
[[File:E2070 new method called to generate new response.png|900px]]

File:E2070 action parameters.png

2020-10-14T16:03:35Z

Czhou6:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-13T16:11:46Z

Czhou6:

File:E2070 set questionnaire for new.png

2020-10-13T16:10:45Z

Czhou6:

File:E2070 set questionnaire.png

2020-10-13T16:09:18Z

Czhou6:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-13T14:40:24Z

Czhou6: /* METHOD: def new */

File:E2070 new.png

2020-10-13T14:39:19Z

Czhou6:

File:E2070 new method called to generate new response.png

2020-10-13T14:31:43Z

Czhou6:

File:E2070 request a new review.png

2020-10-13T14:31:19Z

Czhou6:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-13T00:46:42Z

Czhou6:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2070. Refactor response controller.rb

2020-10-13T00:39:03Z

Czhou6:

File:E2070 expert review.png

2020-10-13T00:29:23Z

Czhou6: