Weekly Updates (Logs + Contributions)

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

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

Every week, 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). Once in-class checkins start, you are graded on professionalism, engagement, and planning using a separate rubric (see rubric).

Rubric for Weekly Logs

Total marks possible: 6 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	[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.	[2 pt] All required information is provided.	[1 pt] Some required information is missing.	[0 pt] Most or all of the required information is missing.

Rubric for Weekly Contributions

Total marks possible: 18 points.

Criteria	Exceeds Expectations	Meets Expectations	Below Expectations	No Submission
Individual PR	[6 pt] The PR template is used and marked accurately. The planned PR is complete and merged. The code is clean, submitted early to allow others time to review, and makes use of existing coding conventions established in the code base. The code is well-documented (not excessively done, but explains any logic or design niches). The code does NOT negatively impact existing code --- and if so, the impacted code is also refactored. The code does NOT negatively impact existing design --- and if so, the associated design documentation must be updated accordingly. Bonus marks are possible if there is significant work done to help teammates with their PRs, and/or writing additional PRs of significant size and high-quality.	[4 pt] The PR template is used but it has incorrect information. The planned PR is coded and merged. The quality of the code is lower than ideal (i.e., a subsequent PR is required to refactor this code). Documentation is missing or incomplete. Style and design needs improvement.	[2 pt] The PR template is not used. Some of the planned PR is coded and only part of it is merged. The PR is incomplete. Documentation is missing or incomplete. Style and design needs improvement.	[0 pt] The planned feature is mostly unfinished or not merged.
Individual Tests	[6 pt] Tests are written that cover the logical cases for a code PR (it can be someone else's). Tests are integrated within the existing test framework. Written tests do NOT berak existing tests --- if so, the impacted tests must be fixed. Quality of written tests and coverage of tests are superb. Integration and system-level tests are written as appropriate. Tests are appropriately documented (not excessively, but describes the intended coverage so the reviewer can accept it without too much trouble). Bonus marks are possible if there is significant work done to help teammates with their test PRs, and/or writing additional test PRs of significant size and high-quality.	[4 pt] Tests are written that cover the logical cases of a code PR. The tests are merged and they do not break existing passing tests. Test coverage is lower than ideal (i.e., a subsequent PR is required to fully test the intended feature). Documentation is missing or incomplete. Style and design needs improvement.	[2 pt] Some obvious logical 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/merged.
Individual Code Reviews	[6 pt] Written code reviews are constructive in helping others make changes. Reviews do not simply indicate something is wrong --- the reviews give an idea of how to fix the problem. Reviews comment on code functionality, test coverage, program design, and coding style consistency. Provides at least a good review for one code PR and one test PR. Not the second code reviewer every time. Bonus marks are possible if a first review is really awesome in a way that it provides constructive feedback without AI-generated content.	[4 pt] Provides at least a good review for one code PR and one test PR. Reviews focus on finding mistakes without offering explanations of why something needs to be fixed or how they can be fixed. Not the second code reviewer every time.	[2 pt] Provides at least a good review for one code PR and one test PR. The review content is short and superficial, or overly long and AI-generated. Not the second code reviewer every time.	[0 pt] The required reviews are missing, or done only superficially. Is the second code reviewer every time.