From f9af1121aa8b56967ad7d25ae41261ec263b5d22 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: AndrewMurrell Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:50:51 -0400 Subject: Finished those 2 other areas. --- doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md | 19 ++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) (limited to 'doc') diff --git a/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md b/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md index c568917..eb5403e 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} @@ -110,8 +110,18 @@ place, this has been fixed). ## Tournament settings {#tourney-settings} +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. + ## 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} ## Permissions system {#permissions} @@ -129,12 +139,7 @@ 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 -- cgit v1.2.3-2-g168b From ef37c8c536e0e3610ad481e81413ce8be8845480 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Shumaker Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:53:28 -0400 Subject: write areas for improvement --- doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) (limited to 'doc') diff --git a/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md b/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md index c568917..2945749 100644 --- a/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md +++ b/doc/Sprint1-Retrospective.md @@ -150,20 +150,28 @@ 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 - -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. - -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) - -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. +# How to improve + +Peer reviews and testing were our biggest pitfalls. + + +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. 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. 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. -- cgit v1.2.3-2-g168b