E1914 Refactor users controller - Revision history

Knarang: /* Travis CI */

2019-04-03T13:24:39Z

Travis CI

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:24, 3 April 2019
Line 116:		Line 116:

	== Travis CI ==		== Travis CI ==
	We discovered that we had not synced the Main Expertiza beta branch with our forked beta branch ~~during the first review~~, so we have synced and made some commits ~~and~~ the Travis CI builds pass and can be seen in our pull request.		During the second round review, we discovered that we had not synced the Main Expertiza beta branch with our forked beta branch, so we have synced our branch with the main Expertiza branch and made some commits to fix issues in Travis CI builds. Eventually, the Travis CI builds pass and can be seen in our pull request.

	== Design choices ==		== Design choices ==

Knarang: /* Manual Testing */

2019-04-03T13:17:42Z

Manual Testing

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:17, 3 April 2019
Line 114:		Line 114:
	To check if the build passed or not, [https://github.com/nikitaparanjape/expertiza/tree/beta this] is the repository which we forked from expertiza. If you navigate to this and scroll down to the README, you should be able to see the build status and test case coverage statistics. You should also be ble to see the build status and all checks at the end of the pull request.<br>		To check if the build passed or not, [https://github.com/nikitaparanjape/expertiza/tree/beta this] is the repository which we forked from expertiza. If you navigate to this and scroll down to the README, you should be able to see the build status and test case coverage statistics. You should also be ble to see the build status and all checks at the end of the pull request.<br>
	The other changes we made like renaming methods and documenting code are not so visible in the GUI and will have to be seen in the code.		The other changes we made like renaming methods and documenting code are not so visible in the GUI and will have to be seen in the code.

			== Travis CI ==
			We discovered that we had not synced the Main Expertiza beta branch with our forked beta branch during the first review, so we have synced and made some commits and the Travis CI builds pass and can be seen in our pull request.

	== Design choices ==		== Design choices ==

Nparanj: /* Manual Testing */

2019-04-03T04:21:45Z

Manual Testing

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:21, 3 April 2019
Line 112:		Line 112:

	'''4) Other changes:''' <br>		'''4) Other changes:''' <br>
	To check if the build passed or not, [https://github.com/nikitaparanjape/expertiza/tree/beta this] is the repository which we forked from expertiza. If you navigate to this and scroll down to the README, you should be able to see the build status and test case coverage statistics.<br>		To check if the build passed or not, [https://github.com/nikitaparanjape/expertiza/tree/beta this] is the repository which we forked from expertiza. If you navigate to this and scroll down to the README, you should be able to see the build status and test case coverage statistics. You should also be ble to see the build status and all checks at the end of the pull request.<br>
	The other changes we made like renaming methods and documenting code are not so visible in the GUI and will have to be seen in the code.		The other changes we made like renaming methods and documenting code are not so visible in the GUI and will have to be seen in the code.

Nparanj: /* Important Links */

2019-03-29T17:38:49Z

Important Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 29 March 2019
Line 135:		Line 135:

	== Important Links ==		== Important Links ==
	1. Expertiza ~~Main page~~: [http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/Main_Page Expertiza Main Page] <br>		1. Expertiza Documentation: [http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/Main_Page Expertiza Main Page] <br>
	2. To show our design changes, we have hosted our implementation on VCL. The link is: [http://152.46.17.33:8080 VCL instance] <br>		2. To show our design changes, we have hosted our implementation on VCL. The link is: [http://152.46.17.33:8080 VCL instance] <br>
	3. Link to the pull request [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1367 Pull request.]		3. Link to the pull request [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1367 Pull request.]

Nparanj: /* Design choices */

2019-03-29T17:38:04Z

Design choices

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 29 March 2019
Line 124:		Line 124:
	Option 3: <br>		Option 3: <br>
	Create partial files in the views folder. Have Users_controller, Account_requests_controller access these partials. The code becomes DRY and also readable.<br><br>		Create partial files in the views folder. Have Users_controller, Account_requests_controller access these partials. The code becomes DRY and also readable.<br><br>
	We decided to go with the second option. Even though these forms contain the same code right now, due to changing requirements in the future, these views may need to be changed which would allow us to add more functionality in the future. This option gives some flexibility to the accounts_controller to modify the form without affecting the User's form. This design decision was taken with ~~the permission~~ our mentor.		We decided to go with the second option. Even though these forms contain the same code right now, due to changing requirements in the future, these views may need to be changed which would allow us to add more functionality in the future. This option gives some flexibility to the accounts_controller to modify the form without affecting the User's form. This design decision was taken after discussions with our mentor.
	The partials that are now duplicated are: _email, _name, _institution, _password, and _prefs which can be found in user and account_request views. <br><br>		The partials that are now duplicated are: _email, _name, _institution, _password, and _prefs which can be found in user and account_request views. <br><br>

Nparanj: /* About Expertiza */

2019-03-29T17:36:44Z

About Expertiza

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 29 March 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== About Expertiza ==		== About Expertiza ==
	Expertiza is a web application where students can submit and peer-review learning objects (articles, code, web sites, etc). It is used in select courses at NC State and by professors at several other colleges and universities.<br>		Expertiza is a web application where students can submit and peer-review learning objects (articles, code, web sites, etc). It is used in select courses at NC State and by professors at several other colleges and universities.<br><br>
	This document contains the description of the changes that we made to users_controller, how we refactored it, our testing results and some design decisions that we took while making these changes.		This document contains the description of the changes that we made to users_controller, how we refactored it, our testing results and some design decisions that we took while making these changes.

Nparanj: /* Test Plan */

2019-03-29T17:35:40Z

Test Plan

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 29 March 2019
Line 89:		Line 89:
	[[File:Rsz test users.png]] <br>		[[File:Rsz test users.png]] <br>

	=== Manual Testing ===		== Manual Testing ==
	The [http://152.46.17.33:8080 link] to our project instance.<br>		The [http://152.46.17.33:8080 link] to our project instance.<br>

Knarang: /* Design choices */

2019-03-29T14:58:31Z

Design choices

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:58, 29 March 2019
Line 124:		Line 124:
	Option 3: <br>		Option 3: <br>
	Create partial files in the views folder. Have Users_controller, Account_requests_controller access these partials. The code becomes DRY and also readable.<br><br>		Create partial files in the views folder. Have Users_controller, Account_requests_controller access these partials. The code becomes DRY and also readable.<br><br>
	We decided to go with the second option. Even though ~~the two~~ forms ~~happen to be~~ the same right now, ~~some time~~ in the future, ~~they~~ may ~~deviate, if we choose~~ to add more functionality. This option gives some flexibility to the accounts_controller to modify the form without affecting the User's form.		We decided to go with the second option. Even though these forms contain the same code right now, due to changing requirements in the future, these views may need to be changed which would allow us to add more functionality in the future. This option gives some flexibility to the accounts_controller to modify the form without affecting the User's form. This design decision was taken with the permission our mentor.
	The partials that are now duplicated are: _email, _name, _institution, _password, and _prefs which can be found in user and ~~account request~~ views. <br><br>		The partials that are now duplicated are: _email, _name, _institution, _password, and _prefs which can be found in user and account_request views. <br><br>

	''' 2) Refactoring variable names''':<br>		''' 2) Refactoring variable names''':<br>

Knarang: /* RSpec testing for users_controller */

2019-03-29T14:53:58Z

RSpec testing for users_controller

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:53, 29 March 2019
Line 81:		Line 81:

	=== RSpec testing for users_controller ===		=== RSpec testing for users_controller ===
	The pagination for users_controller was not tested correctly in the previous implementation. We fixed this issue ~~and it can now be seen that all 18~~ test ~~cases passed~~ for ~~users_controller~~.		''' Problem: ''' <br>
			The pagination for users_controller was not tested correctly in the previous implementation. We fixed this issue by writing a test for this.

	[[File:Rsz test users.png]]		''' Solution: ''' <br>
			It can now be seen that all 18 test cases pass for users_controller.

			[[File:Rsz test users.png]] <br>

	=== Manual Testing ===		=== Manual Testing ===

Knarang: /* RSpec testing for users_controller */

2019-03-29T14:51:59Z

RSpec testing for users_controller

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:51, 29 March 2019
Line 81:		Line 81:

	=== RSpec testing for users_controller ===		=== RSpec testing for users_controller ===
	It can be seen that all 18 test cases passed for users_controller.		The pagination for users_controller was not tested correctly in the previous implementation. We fixed this issue and it can now be seen that all 18 test cases passed for users_controller.

	[[File:Rsz test users.png]]		[[File:Rsz test users.png]]