Biweekly Checkpoint [21 pts]

Both you and your team will be assessed every two weeks on a number of criteria.

Only merged activities will be graded, so please work on refining your coding process -- this includes feature/issue tracking, keeping your PRs small, and getting it properly tested and reviewed on time.

Every two weeks, you are expected to complete a sprint. You are also required to complete peer evaluations at the end of each sprint (but that uses a separate rubric).

Evaluation Rubric

Total marks possible: 21 points.

Criteria	Exceeds Expectations	Meets Expectations	Below Expectations	No Submission
Team Logs and Collaboration	[3 pts] All required information is provided. Reflection points explain what went well and didn't. Planning activities for the next cycle support the reflection points.	[2 pts] All required information is provided.	[1 pt] Some required information is missing.	[0 pt] Most or all of the required information is missing.
Individual Logs and In-Class Participation	[3 pt] All required information is provided. Reflection points explain what went well and didn't. Planning activities for the next cycle support the reflection points. Student actively participates during the in-class checkin.	[2 pt] All required information is provided. Student participates during the in-class checkin.	[1 pt] Some required information is missing. Student is late or is inattentive during the in-class checkin.	[0 pt] Most or all of the required information is missing. Student is absent during in-class checkin.
Individual Features	[6 pt] The planned feature is coded and merged. The code is clean, completed early, and makes use of existing coding conventions established in the code base. The code has documentation as required (not excessively done, but explains any logic or design niches). Bonus marks will be given for significant work that results in helping other team members with their code.	[4 pt] The planned feature is coded and merged. Documentation is missing. Style and design needs improvement.	[2 pt] Work is not merged. Some or most of the feature seems to be there and is demoable locally.	[0 pt] The planned feature is mostly unfinished.
Individual Tests	[6 pt] Tests are written that cover the logical cases for the code. They are integrated within the test framework. Regression testing shows all tests, including the new ones, are passing. Integration and system-level tests are written as appropriate. Tests are appropriately documented (not excessively, but describdes the intended coverage).	[4 pt] Tests are written that cover the logical cases for the code and new tests do not break existing passing cases.	[2 pt] Some of the required tests are missing, or regression testing is not done properly. Tests have poor coverage.	[0 pt] Most or all of the tests are not done.
Individual Code Reviews	[3 pt] Written code reviews are constructive in helping others make changes. Reviews mention test coverage, program design, and coding style.	[2 pt] Required code reviews are done, they show the code was properly reviewed but no additional comments/insights were made.	[1 pt] Required code reviews are done but superficially, or some code reviews are missing.	[0 pt] Required code reviews are mostly not done, or done only superficially.