haas:fall2016:common:submitblurb
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| haas:fall2016:common:submitblurb [2016/08/28 14:49] – [Submission Criteria] wedge | haas:fall2016:common:submitblurb [2021/09/08 17:12] (current) – wedge | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| To be successful in this project, the following criteria must be met: | To be successful in this project, the following criteria must be met: | ||
| - | * Project must be submit on time, by the posted deadline, and submitted via the **submit** tool on lab46. | + | * Project must be submit on time, by the posted deadline. |
| * Early submissions will earn 1 bonus point per full day in advance of the deadline. | * Early submissions will earn 1 bonus point per full day in advance of the deadline. | ||
| * Bonus eligibility requires an honest attempt at performing the project (no blank efforts accepted) | * Bonus eligibility requires an honest attempt at performing the project (no blank efforts accepted) | ||
| - | * Late submissions will lose 25% credit per day, with the submission window closing on the 4th day following the deadline. | + | * Late submissions will lose 33% credit per day, with the submission window closing on the 3rd day following the deadline. |
| - | * To clarify: if a project is due on Wednesday (before its end), it would then be 25% off on Thursday, | + | * To clarify: if a project is due on Wednesday (before its end), it would then be 33% off on Thursday, |
| * Certain projects may not have a late grace period, and the due date is the absolute end of things. | * Certain projects may not have a late grace period, and the due date is the absolute end of things. | ||
| - | | + | * all requested functions must be implemented in the related library |
| - | | + | * all requested functionality must conform to stated requirements (either on this project page or in comment banner in source code files themselves). |
| - | * all requested functionality must conform to stated requirements (either on this project page or in comment banner in source code files themselves). | + | * Output generated |
| - | * Executed programs | + | * output |
| - | * output | + | |
| * Processing must be correct based on input given and output requested | * Processing must be correct based on input given and output requested | ||
| - | * Output, if applicable, must be correct based on values input | + | * Project header files are NOT to be altered. During evaluation the stock header files will be copied in, which could lead to compile-time problems. |
| + | * Code must compile cleanly. | ||
| + | * Each source file must compile cleanly (worth 3 total points): | ||
| + | * 3/3: no compiler warnings, notes or errors. | ||
| + | * 2/3: one of warning or note present during compile | ||
| + | * 1/3: two of warning or note present during compile | ||
| + | * 0/3: compiler errors present (code doesn' | ||
| * Code must be nicely and consistently indented (you may use the **indent** tool) | * Code must be nicely and consistently indented (you may use the **indent** tool) | ||
| * You are free to use your own coding style, but you must be **consistent** | * You are free to use your own coding style, but you must be **consistent** | ||
| Line 42: | Line 47: | ||
| * 1/3: Light commenting effort, not much time or energy appears to have been put in. | * 1/3: Light commenting effort, not much time or energy appears to have been put in. | ||
| * 0/3: No original comments | * 0/3: No original comments | ||
| + | * should I deserve nice things, my terminal is usually 90 characters wide. So if you'd like to format your code not to exceed 90 character wide terminals (and avoid line wrapping comments), at least as reasonably as possible, those are two sure-fire ways of making a good impression on me with respect to code presentation and comments. | ||
| * Sufficient comments explaining the point of provided logic **MUST** be present | * Sufficient comments explaining the point of provided logic **MUST** be present | ||
| * Code must be appropriately modified | * Code must be appropriately modified | ||
| * Appropriate modifications will be rated on the following scale (worth 3 total points): | * Appropriate modifications will be rated on the following scale (worth 3 total points): | ||
| - | * 3/3: Complete attention to detail, original-looking implementation | + | * 3/3: Complete attention to detail, original-looking implementation- also is not unnecessarily reinventing existing functionality |
| - | * 2/3: Lacking some details (like variable initializations), | + | * 2/3: Lacking some details (like variable initializations), |
| * 1/3: Incomplete implementation (typically lacking some obvious details/ | * 1/3: Incomplete implementation (typically lacking some obvious details/ | ||
| * 0/3: Incomplete implementation to the point of non-functionality (or was not started at all) | * 0/3: Incomplete implementation to the point of non-functionality (or was not started at all) | ||
| - | | + | * Implementation must be accurate with respect to the spirit/ |
| + | * 3/3: Implementation is in line with spirit of project | ||
| + | * 2/3: Some avoidance/ | ||
| + | * 1/3: Generally avoiding the spirit of the project (new, different things, resorting to old and familiar, despite it being against the directions) | ||
| + | * 0/3: entirely avoiding. | ||
| + | * Error checking must be adequately and appropriately performed, according to the following scale (worth 3 total points): | ||
| + | * 3/3: Full and proper error checking performed for all reasonable cases, including queries for external resources and data. | ||
| + | * 2/3: Enough error checking performed to pass basic project requirements and work for most operational cases. | ||
| + | * 1/3: Minimal error checking, code is fragile (code may not work in full accordance with project requirements) | ||
| + | * 0/3: No error checking (code likely does not work in accordance with project requirements) | ||
| + | | ||
| * points will be lost for solutions containing multiple return statements in a function. | * points will be lost for solutions containing multiple return statements in a function. | ||
| * Absolutely, positively **NO** (as in **ZERO**) use of **goto** statements. | * Absolutely, positively **NO** (as in **ZERO**) use of **goto** statements. | ||
| - | * points will most definitely be lost for solutions employing such things. | + | * points will most definitely be lest for solutions employing such things. |
| + | * No custom global variables! The header files provide all you need. | ||
| + | * Do NOT edit the header files. | ||
| * Track/ | * Track/ | ||
| * Filling out any submit-time questionnaires | * Filling out any submit-time questionnaires | ||
| * Submit a copy of your source code to me using the **submit** tool (**make submit** will do this) by the deadline. | * Submit a copy of your source code to me using the **submit** tool (**make submit** will do this) by the deadline. | ||
haas/fall2016/common/submitblurb.1472395751.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/08/28 14:49 by wedge
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
