Project 1: Dynamic Array CS310 – Spring2023
Project 1: Grading Rubric
No Credit
• Non submitted assignments
• Assignments late by more than 48 hours
• Non compiling assignments
• Non-independent work
• “Hard coded” solutions
• Code that would win an obfuscated code competition with the rest of CS310 students
How will my assignment be graded?
• Grading will be divided into two portions:
o Automatic Testing (95%): To assess the correctness of programs.
o Manual Inspection (5%): A checklist of features your programs should exhibit. These comprise things that cannot be easily checked via unit tests
such as good variable name selection, proper decomposition of a problem into multiple functions or cooperating objects, overall design elegance,
and proper asymptotic complexity. These features will be checked by graders and assigned credit based on level of compliance. See the remainder
of this document for more information.
• You CANNOT get points (even style/manual-inspection points) for code that doesn’t compile or for submitting just the files given to you. You CAN get
manual inspection points for code that (a) compiles and (b) is an “honest attempt” at the assignment, but does not pass any unit tests.
• Extra credit for early submissions:
o 1% extra credit rewarded for every 24 hours your submission made before the due time
o Up to 5% extra credit will be rewarded
o Your latest submission before the due time will be used for grading and extra credit checking. You CANNOT choose which one counts.
Automated Testing Rubric
For this assignment a portion of the automated testing will be based on JUnit tests and a manual run of your program. The JUnit tests used for grading will NOT be
provided for you (you need to test your own programs!), but the tests will be based on what has been specified in the project description and the comments in the
code templates. A breakdown of the point allocations is given below:
| 50 pts | ThreeTenCipher.java |
| 40 pts | EncryptDecrypt.java |
| 5_ pts | NoTextException |
| –2.5 pts (“off the top”) | Not passing code style check |
| –2.5 pts (“off the top”) | Not passing JavaDoc style check |
Maha Shamseddine
Manual Code Inspection Rubric
“Off the top” points (i.e. items that will lose you points rather than earn you points):
• Submission format (-5pts or -2.5pts, see below)
• Code formatting/layout (-5pts or -2.5pts, see below)
| Inspection Point | Points | High (all points) | Med (1/2 points) | Low (no points) |
| Submission Format (Folder Structure) |
5pts (“off the top”) |
Code is in a folder which in turn is in a zip file. Folder is correctly named. |
Code is not directly in user folder, but in a sub-folder. Folder name is correct or close to correct. |
Code is directly in the zip file (no folder) and/or folder name is incorrect. |
| Coding Conventions and JavaDocs |
5pts (in ADDITION to the automatic check) |
The entire code base is well documented with meaningful comments in JavaDoc format. Occasional in-method comments used for clarity. [AND] Code has good, meaningful variable, method, and class names. |
The code base has some comments, but is lacking comments on some classes/methods/ fields or the comments given are mostly “translating” the code. [AND/OR] Names are mostly meaningful, but a few are unclear or ambiguous (to a human reader) |
The only documentation is what was in the template and/or documentation is missing from the code (e.g. taken out). [AND/OR] Names often have single letter identifiers and/or incorrect/meaningless identifiers. (Note: i/j/k acceptable for indexes.) |