interview_prac2_marking_rubric_S1_2020.pdf CRITERIA UNSATSFACTORY POOR SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Program Quality Example Major Mistakes: Instance variables used when class variables should have been...

I have attached my files along with this. It is a python assignment


interview_prac2_marking_rubric_S1_2020.pdf CRITERIA UNSATSFACTORY POOR SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Program Quality Example Major Mistakes: Instance variables used when class variables should have been or vice versa; multiple pre-conditions not enforced; multiple methods implemented in Fighter when should be defined as abstract and vice versa; Fighter class not inheriting from abstract base class. Example Minor Mistakes: One pre-condition not enforced, one method implemented in Fighter when should be abstracted or vice versa; one variable defined as class variable when should be instance variable or vice-versa; abstract methods not declared with appropriate decorator Many major mistakes/extremely low quality (0 marks) Multiple major errors, quality of code is poor (instructions likely not obeyed). (3 marks) At most 1 major error or many minor mistakes. Code quality is passable. (6 marks) No major errors and at most a few minor mistakes. Good code quality overall. (9 marks) At most 1 minor mistake. Great quality overall. (12 marks) Documentation Example Major Mistakes: No file header documentation; multiple methods missing type hints or type hints incorrect; complexity documentation absent on any function, multiple methods with complexity documentation present but incorrect/incomplete; multiple methods missing method summarisation in function header. Example Minor Mistakes: One function missing type hints or type hints incorrect; one function with complexity documentation present but incorrect/incomplete; pre- conditions not documented in appropriate methods (each one missing is a separate error); single method missing method summarisation in function header Many major mistakes/absent documentation. (0 marks) Multiple major errors, documentation is lacking. (2 mark) At most 1 major error or many minor mistakes. Documentation is acceptable. (4 marks) No major errors and at most a few minor mistakes. Good documentation overall. (6 marks) No major errors and at most 1 minor mistake. Great documentation overall. (8 marks) Program Quality Example Major Mistakes: Similar to Question 1;not reusing already defined methods; unit attributes implemented without ability to update where appropriate; derived classes not inheriting from Parent class; unnecessary instance variables defined Example Minor Mistakes: Similar to Question 1; not calling the Fighter methods when they should be called while overriding. Note: methods that should be defined for the unit that have been implemented in the Fighter class or vice versa will not be penalised again for that mistake (though they might have other issues now that the derived class is being considered). Many major mistakes/extremely low quality (0 marks) Multiple major errors, quality of code is poor (instructions likely not obeyed). (1.5 marks) At most 1 major error or many minor mistakes. Code quality is passable. (3 marks) No major errors and at most a few minor mistakes. Good code quality overall. (4.5 marks) At most 1 minor mistake. Great quality overall. (6 marks) Documentation and Testing Fatal Mistake: Not adding any test cases Example Major Mistakes: Similar to Question 1; any test cases missing the requested descriptive comment; multiple test case descriptions not descriptive enough; insufficient commenting for multiple methods . Example Minor Mistakes: Simliar to Question 1; single test case description not descriptive enough Many major mistakes/absent documentation or fatal mistake. (0 marks) Multiple major errors, documentation is lacking. (1 mark) At most 1 major error or many minor mistakes. Documentation is acceptable. (2 marks) No major errors and at most a few minor mistakes. Good documentation overall. (3 marks) No major errors and at most 1 minor mistake. Great documentation overall. (4 marks) Correctness Example of common mistakes in correctness: Not raising exceptions when the user input is incorrect; not using the correct formula for damage or defence methods; not correctly defining __str__; units not instantiated correctly; units don't die when dead (life <=0) no method tested in the test harness passes without errors (0 marks) at most 2 of the 4 methods in the test harness pass without errors. (2 marks) at most 3 of the 5 methods in the test harness pass without errors. (5 marks) all methods in the test harness and all other inputs tested by demonstrator pass without errors. (7 marks) all methods in the extended test harness and all other inputs tested by demonstrator pass without errors. (10 marks) program quality example major mistakes: similar to question 1; __str__ method doesn't use arraystack implementation; formation pre-condition not enforced; having significant repeated or convoluted code; choose army doesn't allow for additional input attempts after incorrect input; example minor mistakes: similar to question 1; formation pre-condition not enforced correctly; having mildly repeated or convoluted code; output prompts given to user not matching instructions many major mistakes/extremely low quality (0 marks) multiple major errors, quality of code is poor (instructions likely not obeyed). (1 mark) at most 1 major error or many minor mistakes. code quality is passable. (3.5 marks) no major errors and at most a few minor mistakes. good code quality overall. (5.5 marks) at most 1 minor mistake. great quality overall. (7 marks) fit1008/2085 - introduction to computer science interview prac 2 - marking rubric - sem 1 2020 question 1 – 20 marks question 2 – 20 marks question 3 – 25 marks documentation and testing fatal mistake: not adding any test cases example major mistakes: similar to question 2; example minor mistakes: similar to question 2; many major mistakes/absent documentation or fatal mistake. (0 marks) multiple major errors, documentation is lacking. (1 mark) at most 1 major error or many minor mistakes. documentation is acceptable. (2.5 marks) no major errors and at most a few minor mistakes. good documentation overall. (4 marks) no major errors and at most 1 minor mistake. great documentation overall. (5 marks) correctness example of common mistakes in correctness: not dealing with incorrect input when reading the numbers (non integers, less /more than 3 integers, over budget, etc), not raising exceptions when the user input is incorrect, not adding the fighters in the correct order, adding more/less fighters than requested, using assertions when exceptions should be used or vice-versa. no method tested in the test harness passes without errors (0 marks) at most 1 of the 2 methods in the test harness passes without errors. (3 marks) all methods in the test harness pass without errors and all student tests don't fail. (6.5 marks) all methods in the test harness and at least half of the test in the extended harness pass without errors. (10 marks) all methods in the extended test harness and all other inputs tested by demonstrator pass without errors. (13 marks) program quality example major mistakes: similar to question 1; armies not able to be read in; having significant repeated or convoluted code; top unit on stack not popped as fighting unit; fighting units not returned to stack; units are accessed from positions other than the top of the stack; unit attributes not updated using appropriate methods example minor mistakes: similar to question 1; having mildly repeated or convoluted code; many major mistakes/extremely low quality (0 marks) multiple major errors, quality of code is poor (instructions likely not obeyed). (1 mark) at most 1 major error or many minor mistakes. code quality is passable. (2 marks) no major errors and at most a few minor mistakes. good code quality overall. (3 marks) at most 1 minor mistake. great quality overall. (4 marks) documentation and testing fatal mistake: not adding any test cases example major mistakes: similar to question2; no file header documentation; example minor mistakes: similar to question 2 many major mistakes/absent documentation or fatal mistake. (0 marks) multiple major errors, documentation is lacking. (0.5 mark) at most 1 major error or many minor mistakes. documentation is acceptable. (1.5 marks) no major errors and at most a few minor mistakes. good documentation overall. (2.5 marks) no major errors and at most 1 minor mistake. great documentation overall. (3 marks) correctness example of common mistakes in correctness: not decreasing one life when both fighters are alive, pushing a fighter that is not alive, not following a gladiatorial method; formation not using stack; gladiatorial combat returns wrong value; no method tested in the test harness passes without errors (0 marks) the method in the test harness passed without errors. (2.5 marks) the method in the test harness passes without errors and all student tests don't fail. (4 marks) all methods in the test harness and at least half of the test in the extended harness pass without errors. (6 marks) all methods in the extended test harness and all other inputs tested by demonstrator pass without errors. (8 marks) program quality example major mistakes: copy pasting code from gladiatorial combat; copy pasting code for conduct combat; __str__ method not using altered circularqueue method; armies battling with different formations example minor mistakes: same as question 4; many major mistakes/extremely low quality (0 marks) multiple major errors, quality of code is poor (instructions likely not obeyed). (0.5 mark) at most 1 major error or many minor mistakes. code quality is passable. (1.5 marks) no major errors and at most a few minor mistakes. good code quality overall. (2.5 marks) at most 1 minor mistake. great quality overall. (3 marks) documentation and testing fatal mistake: not adding any test cases example major mistakes: similar to question 4; example minor mistakes: similar to question 4; many major mistakes/absent documentation or fatal mistake. (0 marks) multiple major errors, documentation is lacking. (0.5 marks) at most 1 major error or many minor mistakes. documentation is acceptable. (1 mark) no major errors and at most a few minor mistakes. good documentation overall. (1.5 marks) no major errors and at most 1 minor mistake. great no="" method="" tested="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" passes="" without="" errors="" (0="" marks)="" at="" most="" 2="" of="" the="" 4="" methods="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" pass="" without="" errors.="" (2="" marks)="" at="" most="" 3="" of="" the="" 5="" methods="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" pass="" without="" errors.="" (5="" marks)="" all="" methods="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" and="" all="" other="" inputs="" tested="" by="" demonstrator="" pass="" without="" errors.="" (7="" marks)="" all="" methods="" in="" the="" extended="" test="" harness="" and="" all="" other="" inputs="" tested="" by="" demonstrator="" pass="" without="" errors.="" (10="" marks)="" program="" quality="" example="" major="" mistakes:="" similar="" to="" question="" 1;="" __str__="" method="" doesn't="" use="" arraystack="" implementation;="" formation="" pre-condition="" not="" enforced;="" having="" significant="" repeated="" or="" convoluted="" code;="" choose="" army="" doesn't="" allow="" for="" additional="" input="" attempts="" after="" incorrect="" input;="" example="" minor="" mistakes:="" similar="" to="" question="" 1;="" formation="" pre-condition="" not="" enforced="" correctly;="" having="" mildly="" repeated="" or="" convoluted="" code;="" output="" prompts="" given="" to="" user="" not="" matching="" instructions="" many="" major="" mistakes/extremely="" low="" quality="" (0="" marks)="" multiple="" major="" errors,="" quality="" of="" code="" is="" poor="" (instructions="" likely="" not="" obeyed).="" (1="" mark)="" at="" most="" 1="" major="" error="" or="" many="" minor="" mistakes.="" code="" quality="" is="" passable.="" (3.5="" marks)="" no="" major="" errors="" and="" at="" most="" a="" few="" minor="" mistakes.="" good="" code="" quality="" overall.="" (5.5="" marks)="" at="" most="" 1="" minor="" mistake.="" great="" quality="" overall.="" (7="" marks)="" fit1008/2085="" -="" introduction="" to="" computer="" science="" interview="" prac="" 2="" -="" marking="" rubric="" -="" sem="" 1="" 2020="" question="" 1="" –="" 20="" marks="" question="" 2="" –="" 20="" marks="" question="" 3="" –="" 25="" marks="" documentation="" and="" testing="" fatal="" mistake:="" not="" adding="" any="" test="" cases="" example="" major="" mistakes:="" similar="" to="" question="" 2;="" example="" minor="" mistakes:="" similar="" to="" question="" 2;="" many="" major="" mistakes/absent="" documentation="" or="" fatal="" mistake.="" (0="" marks)="" multiple="" major="" errors,="" documentation="" is="" lacking.="" (1="" mark)="" at="" most="" 1="" major="" error="" or="" many="" minor="" mistakes.="" documentation="" is="" acceptable.="" (2.5="" marks)="" no="" major="" errors="" and="" at="" most="" a="" few="" minor="" mistakes.="" good="" documentation="" overall.="" (4="" marks)="" no="" major="" errors="" and="" at="" most="" 1="" minor="" mistake.="" great="" documentation="" overall.="" (5="" marks)="" correctness="" example="" of="" common="" mistakes="" in="" correctness:="" not="" dealing="" with="" incorrect="" input="" when="" reading="" the="" numbers="" (non="" integers,="" less="" more="" than="" 3="" integers,="" over="" budget,="" etc),="" not="" raising="" exceptions="" when="" the="" user="" input="" is="" incorrect,="" not="" adding="" the="" fighters="" in="" the="" correct="" order,="" adding="" more/less="" fighters="" than="" requested,="" using="" assertions="" when="" exceptions="" should="" be="" used="" or="" vice-versa.="" no="" method="" tested="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" passes="" without="" errors="" (0="" marks)="" at="" most="" 1="" of="" the="" 2="" methods="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" passes="" without="" errors.="" (3="" marks)="" all="" methods="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" pass="" without="" errors="" and="" all="" student="" tests="" don't="" fail.="" (6.5="" marks)="" all="" methods="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" and="" at="" least="" half="" of="" the="" test="" in="" the="" extended="" harness="" pass="" without="" errors.="" (10="" marks)="" all="" methods="" in="" the="" extended="" test="" harness="" and="" all="" other="" inputs="" tested="" by="" demonstrator="" pass="" without="" errors.="" (13="" marks)="" program="" quality="" example="" major="" mistakes:="" similar="" to="" question="" 1;="" armies="" not="" able="" to="" be="" read="" in;="" having="" significant="" repeated="" or="" convoluted="" code;="" top="" unit="" on="" stack="" not="" popped="" as="" fighting="" unit;="" fighting="" units="" not="" returned="" to="" stack;="" units="" are="" accessed="" from="" positions="" other="" than="" the="" top="" of="" the="" stack;="" unit="" attributes="" not="" updated="" using="" appropriate="" methods="" example="" minor="" mistakes:="" similar="" to="" question="" 1;="" having="" mildly="" repeated="" or="" convoluted="" code;="" many="" major="" mistakes/extremely="" low="" quality="" (0="" marks)="" multiple="" major="" errors,="" quality="" of="" code="" is="" poor="" (instructions="" likely="" not="" obeyed).="" (1="" mark)="" at="" most="" 1="" major="" error="" or="" many="" minor="" mistakes.="" code="" quality="" is="" passable.="" (2="" marks)="" no="" major="" errors="" and="" at="" most="" a="" few="" minor="" mistakes.="" good="" code="" quality="" overall.="" (3="" marks)="" at="" most="" 1="" minor="" mistake.="" great="" quality="" overall.="" (4="" marks)="" documentation="" and="" testing="" fatal="" mistake:="" not="" adding="" any="" test="" cases="" example="" major="" mistakes:="" similar="" to="" question2;="" no="" file="" header="" documentation;="" example="" minor="" mistakes:="" similar="" to="" question="" 2="" many="" major="" mistakes/absent="" documentation="" or="" fatal="" mistake.="" (0="" marks)="" multiple="" major="" errors,="" documentation="" is="" lacking.="" (0.5="" mark)="" at="" most="" 1="" major="" error="" or="" many="" minor="" mistakes.="" documentation="" is="" acceptable.="" (1.5="" marks)="" no="" major="" errors="" and="" at="" most="" a="" few="" minor="" mistakes.="" good="" documentation="" overall.="" (2.5="" marks)="" no="" major="" errors="" and="" at="" most="" 1="" minor="" mistake.="" great="" documentation="" overall.="" (3="" marks)="" correctness="" example="" of="" common="" mistakes="" in="" correctness:="" not="" decreasing="" one="" life="" when="" both="" fighters="" are="" alive,="" pushing="" a="" fighter="" that="" is="" not="" alive,="" not="" following="" a="" gladiatorial="" method;="" formation="" not="" using="" stack;="" gladiatorial="" combat="" returns="" wrong="" value;="" no="" method="" tested="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" passes="" without="" errors="" (0="" marks)="" the="" method="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" passed="" without="" errors.="" (2.5="" marks)="" the="" method="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" passes="" without="" errors="" and="" all="" student="" tests="" don't="" fail.="" (4="" marks)="" all="" methods="" in="" the="" test="" harness="" and="" at="" least="" half="" of="" the="" test="" in="" the="" extended="" harness="" pass="" without="" errors.="" (6="" marks)="" all="" methods="" in="" the="" extended="" test="" harness="" and="" all="" other="" inputs="" tested="" by="" demonstrator="" pass="" without="" errors.="" (8="" marks)="" program="" quality="" example="" major="" mistakes:="" copy="" pasting="" code="" from="" gladiatorial="" combat;="" copy="" pasting="" code="" for="" conduct="" combat;="" __str__="" method="" not="" using="" altered="" circularqueue="" method;="" armies="" battling="" with="" different="" formations="" example="" minor="" mistakes:="" same="" as="" question="" 4;="" many="" major="" mistakes/extremely="" low="" quality="" (0="" marks)="" multiple="" major="" errors,="" quality="" of="" code="" is="" poor="" (instructions="" likely="" not="" obeyed).="" (0.5="" mark)="" at="" most="" 1="" major="" error="" or="" many="" minor="" mistakes.="" code="" quality="" is="" passable.="" (1.5="" marks)="" no="" major="" errors="" and="" at="" most="" a="" few="" minor="" mistakes.="" good="" code="" quality="" overall.="" (2.5="" marks)="" at="" most="" 1="" minor="" mistake.="" great="" quality="" overall.="" (3="" marks)="" documentation="" and="" testing="" fatal="" mistake:="" not="" adding="" any="" test="" cases="" example="" major="" mistakes:="" similar="" to="" question="" 4;="" example="" minor="" mistakes:="" similar="" to="" question="" 4;="" many="" major="" mistakes/absent="" documentation="" or="" fatal="" mistake.="" (0="" marks)="" multiple="" major="" errors,="" documentation="" is="" lacking.="" (0.5="" marks)="" at="" most="" 1="" major="" error="" or="" many="" minor="" mistakes.="" documentation="" is="" acceptable.="" (1="" mark)="" no="" major="" errors="" and="" at="" most="" a="" few="" minor="" mistakes.="" good="" documentation="" overall.="" (1.5="" marks)="" no="" major="" errors="" and="" at="" most="" 1="" minor="" mistake.="">
May 15, 2021
SOLUTION.PDF

Get Answer To This Question

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here