diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md | 59 |
1 files changed, 38 insertions, 21 deletions
diff --git a/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md b/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md index 38d3a88..ece8c85 100644 --- a/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md +++ b/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ has been an impressive journey. The entire team became familiar with deploying Rails in our rather diverse working environments and successfully deployed a server -instance located at demo.projectleaguer.net. +instance located at demo.projectleaguer.net as well as on our local boxes. ## Login (back-end) {#login-backend} @@ -109,9 +109,23 @@ designations (although for the demo some of the hooks were not in place, this has been fixed). ## Tournament settings {#tourney-settings} +<<<<<<< HEAD + +Tournament settings were implemented at a basic level, instituting those +items which are similar to all tournaments, regardless of type, orginating +from the game model. + +======= +>>>>>>> 5f96d780def7c33a6d6e452b558ac136ee4d06bc ## Tournament registration {#tourney-registration} +Tournament registration and the tournament contoller were completed which +allowed users to join and participate in basic tournaments of several types. +The tournament controller handled a variety of tournament related tasks, +including creating and updating tournaments and validating tournament related +operations. + ## Match controller {#match-controller} The Match Controller creates the separate matches for a specific tournament. @@ -157,12 +171,7 @@ only had it working where the tournament host would decide who won. ## Server management {#srv-man} -The server management software interface is implemented, and working -fine. The other modules use it. However, what we didn't implement is -an actual *page* to edit these settings. We had this task in the -iteration because other items depended on it. Though we did not -implement the full story, we implemented the core reason that we -wanted it. + # Not implemented @@ -178,20 +187,28 @@ It was decided to not be a priority for sprint one due to time constraints. Also, we want to implement data entry for League of Legends through Riot Games (TM)'s API for grabbing match data. -# End +# How to improve + +Peer reviews and testing were our biggest pitfalls. + -1. Each task must be mentioned under the right category (implemented - and working, implemented but did not work well, or not implemented - and the team must mention why/how it worked or why/how did not - work: 3.5 points ( - 1.0) for each unmentioned task, ( - 0.5) for - each task that is not properly described or placed under the wrong - category. +1. All testing was just manual, in-browser testing, rather than unit + tests. We really need write unit tests this iteration, as we had + breakages where we said "this is exactly why we need unit + testing." However, that happened late enough in the iteration that + we didn't have time to do anything about it. -2. How to improve: Please mention at least 3 ways about how to - improve your work. - 0.5 for each missing point. (Total: 1.5 - points) +2. That leads us into time management. Our commit activity plotted + against time has humps each weak, each growing a little. That is, + we started slow, and ended with a lot of work. This wasn't exactly + poor planing, but we had a poor idea of how much time things would + take. We plan to fix this by front-loading this iteration instead + of back-loading it. -3. For the tasks that were not implemented or did not work well, the - team should implement or fix these as necessary in the next - Sprint. We will use this Retrospective document in the next Demo - Meeting. +3. We had the approach of "show everyone everything" with peer + reviews, as we anticipated that this would be nescessary for + everyone learning Rails. However, in effect it meant that + sometimes information was spread very thin, or because things were + being done "in the open", we didn't ever explicitly review them. + We plan on fixing this next iteration by committing to do very + specific peer reviews with just a couple members of the team. |