CS2103/T Aug '18
  • Flat (current format)
  •     Nested
  • Schedule
  • Textbook
  • Admin Info
  • Report Bugs
  • Slack
  • Forum
  • Instructors
  • Announcements
  • File Submissions
  • Tutorial Schedule
  • Team IDs
  • Java Coding Standard
  • samplerepo-things
  • Addressbook-level1
  • Addressbook-level2
  • Addressbook-level3
  • Addressbook-level4
  • Projects List
  • config.json templates for Reposense
  • Project Code Dashboard (BETA)
  • Full Schedule of Module Activities

    Week 1 [Aug 13]

    Week 2 [Aug 20]

    Week 3 [Aug 27]

    Week 4 [Sep 3]

    Week 5 [Sep 10]

    Week 6 [Sep 17]

    Week 7 [Oct 1]

    Week 8 [Oct 8]

    Week 9 [Oct 15]

    Week 10 [Oct 22]

    Week 11 [Oct 29]

    Week 12 [Nov 5]

    Week 13 [Nov 12]

    Todo

    Admin info to read:

    Admin Project: v1.4 [week 13]

    Final tweaks to docs/product, release product, demo product, evaluate peer projects.

    Summary of submissions:

    Team/Individual Item Name format Upload to
    Source code tag as v1.4 GitHub
    Jar file [team][product name].jar
    e.g. [W09-1][ContactsPlus].jar
    IVLE
    User Guide [TEAM_ID][product Name]UserGuide.pdf
    e.g.[W09-1][Contacts Plus]UserGuide.pdf
    IVLE
    Developer Guide [TEAM_ID][product Name]DeveloperGuide.pdf
    e.g. [W09-1][Contacts Plus]DeveloperGuide.pdf
    IVLE
    Product Website README page, Ui.png, AboutUs page github.io
    Project Portfolio Page [TEAM_ID][Your Name]Portfolio.pdf
    e.g.[W09-1][John Doe]Portfolio.pdf
    html version of PPP page on the product website
    IVLE

    github.io

    Deadline for all v1.4 submissions is Week 13 Monday 23.59 unless stated otherwise.

    • Penalty for late submission: -1 mark for each hour delayed, up to 3 hours. Even a one-second delay is considered late, irrespective of the reason. Penalty for delays beyond 3 hours are determined on a case by case basis.
      • For submissions done via IVLE, the submission time is the timestamp shown by IVLE.
      • When determining the late submission penalty, we take the latest submission even if the same exact file was submitted earlier. Do not submit the same file multiple times if you want to avoid unnecessary late submission penalties.
    • The whole team is penalized for problems in team submissions. Only the respective student is penalized for problems in individual submissions.
    • Please follow submission instructions closely. Any non-compliance will be penalized. e.g. wrong file name, team member photos not suitable, etc.
    • For pdf submissions, ensure the file is usable and hyperlinks in the file are correct. Problems in documents are considered bugs too  e.g. broken links, outdated diagrams/instructions etc..
    • Do not update the repo during the 14 days after the deadline. Get our permission first if you need to update the repo during that freeze period. You can continue to evolve your repo after that.

    Grading:

    Described in [Admin: Project: Assessment]

    v1.4 Product

    Relevant: [Admin Project → Deliverables → Executable ]

     
    • The product should be delivered as an executable jar file.
    • Ideally, the product delivered at v1.4 should be a releasable product. However, in the interest of lowering your workload, we do not penalize if the product is not releasable, as long as the product is acceptance testable.

    Submission: See summary of submissions above

    v1.4 Source Code

    Relevant: [Admin Project → Deliverables → Source Code ]

     
    • The source code should match the executable, and should include the revision history of the source code, as a Git repo.

    Submission: Push the code to GitHub and tag with the version number. Source code (please ensure the code reported by RepoSense as yours is correct; any updates to RepoSense config files or @@author annotations after the deadline will be considered a later submission). Note that the quality of the code attributed to you accounts for a significant component of your final score, graded individually.

    v1.4 User Guide

    Relevant: [Admin Project → Deliverables → User Guide ]

     
    • The User Guide (UG) of the product should match the proposed v2.0 of the product and in sync with the current version of the product.
    • Features not implemented yet should be clearly marked as Coming in v2.0
    • Ensure the UG matches the product precisely, as it will be used by peer testers (and any inaccuracy in the content will be considered bugs).

    Submission: Convert the pdf (AB4 dev guide has some instructions on converting project docs to pdf) and upload to IVLE. See summary of submissions above for the file name format.

    v1.4 Developer Guide

    Relevant: [Admin Project → Deliverables → Developer Guide ]

     
    • The Developer Guide (DG) of the product should match the proposed v2.0 of the product and should be in sync with the current version of the product.
    • The appendix named Instructions for Manual Testing of the Developer Guide should include testing instructions to cover the main enhancement of each team member. There is no need to add testing instructions for existing features if you did not touch them.
      💡 What to include in the appendix Instructions for Manual Testing? This appendix is meant to give some guidance to the tester to chart a path through the features, and provide some important test inputs the tester can copy-paste into the app. There is no need to give a long list of test cases including all possible variations. It is upto the tester to come up with those variations. However, if the instructions are inaccurate or deliberately misses/mis-states information to make testing harder  i.e. annoys the tester, the tester can report it as a bug  (because flaws in developer docs are considered as bugs).
    • Ensure the parted DG parts included in PPPs match the product precisely, as PPPs will be used by peer evaluators (and any inaccuracy in the content will be considered bugs).

    Submission: Similar to UG

    v1.4 Project Portfolio Page (PPP)

    Relevant: [Admin Project → Deliverables → Project Portfolio Page ]

     

    At the end of the project each student is required to submit a Project Portfolio Page.

    • Objective:

      • For you to use  (e.g. in your resume) as a well-documented data point of your SE experience
      • For us to use as a data point to evaluate your,
        • contributions to the project
        • your documentation skills
    • Sections to include:

      • Overview: A short overview of your product to provide some context to the reader.

      • Summary of Contributions:

        • Code contributed: Give a link to your code on Project Code Dashboard, which should be https://nus-cs2103-ay1819s1.github.io/cs2103-dashboard/#=undefined&search=githbub_username_in_lower_case (replace githbub_username_in_lower_case with your actual username in lower case e.g., johndoe). This link is also available in the Project List Page -- linked to the icon under your photo.
        • Main feature implemented: A summary of the main feature (the so called major enhancement) you implemented
        • Other contributions:
          • Other minor enhancements you did which are not related to your main feature
          • Contributions to project management e.g., setting up project tools, managing releases, managing issue tracker etc.
          • Evidence of helping others e.g. responses you posted in our forum, bugs you reported in other team's products,
          • Evidence of technical leadership e.g. sharing useful information in the forum
      • Contributions to the User Guide: Reproduce the parts in the User Guide that you wrote. This can include features you implemented as well as features you propose to implement.
        The purpose of allowing you to include proposed features is to provide you more flexibility to show your documentation skills. e.g. you can bring in a proposed feature just to give you an opportunity to use a UML diagram type not used by the actual features.

      • Contributions to the Developer Guide: Reproduce the parts in the Developer Guide that you wrote. Ensure there is enough content to evaluate your technical documentation skills and UML modelling skills. You can include descriptions of your design/implementations, possible alternatives, pros and cons of alternatives, etc.

      • If you plan to use the PPP in your Resume, you can also include your SE work outside of the module (will not be graded)

    • Format:

      • File name: docs/team/githbub_username_in_lower_case.adoc e.g., docs/team/johndoe.adoc

      • Follow the example in the AddressBook-Level4, but ignore the following two lines in it.

        • Minor enhancement: added a history command that allows the user to navigate to previous commands using up/down keys.
        • Code contributed: [Functional code] [Test code] {give links to collated code files}
      • 💡 You can use the Asciidoc's include feature to include sections from the developer guide or the user guide in your PPP. Follow the example in the sample.

      • It is assumed that all contents in the PPP were written primarily by you. If any section is written by someone else  e.g. someone else wrote described the feature in the User Guide but you implemented the feature, clearly state that the section was written by someone else  (e.g. Start of Extract [from: User Guide] written by Jane Doe).  Reason: Your writing skills will be evaluated based on the PPP

      • Page limit: If you have more content than the limit given below, shorten (or omit some content) so that you do not exceed the page limit. Having too much content in the PPP will be viewed unfavorably during grading. Note: the page limits given below are after converting to PDF format. The actual amount of content you require is actually less than what these numbers suggest because the HTML → PDF conversion adds a lot of spacing around content.

        Content Limit
        Overview + Summary of contributions 0.5-1
        Contributions to the User Guide 1-3
        Contributions to the Developer Guide 3-6
        Total 5-10

    Submission: Similar to UG

    v1.4 Product Website

    Relevant: [Admin Project → Deliverables → Product Website ]

     
    • Include an updated version of the online UG and DG that match v1.4 executable
    • README : Ensure the Ui.png matches the current product
    • AboutUs : Ensure the following:
      • Use a suitable profile photo
    • The purpose of the profile photo is for the teaching team to identify you. Therefore, you should choose a recent individual photo showing your face clearly (i.e., not too small) -- somewhat similar to a passport photo. Some examples can be seen in the 'Teaching team' page. Given below are some examples of good and bad profile photos.

    • If you are uncomfortable posting your photo due to security reasons, you can post a lower resolution image so that it is hard for someone to misuse that image for fraudulent purposes. If you are concerned about privacy, you can request permission to omit your photo from the page by writing to prof.

    • Contains a link to each person's Project Portfolio page
    • Team member names match full names used by IVLE

    Submission: Push the code to GitHub. Ensure the website is auto-published.

    v1.4 Demo

    Relevant: [Admin Project → Deliverables → Demo ]

     
    • Duration: Strictly 18 minutes for a 5-person team and 15 minutes for a 4-person team. Exceeding this limit will be penalized. Any set up time will be taken out of your allocated time.

    • Target audience: Assume you are giving a demo to a higher-level manager of your company, to brief him/her on the current capabilities of the product. This is the first time they are seeing the new product you developed but they are familiar with the AddressBook-level4 (AB4) product. The actual audience are the evaluators (the team supervisor and another tutor).

    • Scope:

      • Each person should demo the enhancements they added. However, it's ok for one member to do all the typing.
      • Subjected to the constraint mentioned in the previous point, as far as possible, organize the demo to present a cohesive picture of the product as a whole, presented in a logical order.  Remember to explain the profile of the target user profile and value proposition early in the demo.
      • It is recommended you showcase how the feature improves the user’s life rather than simply describe each feature.
      • No need to cover design/implementation details as the manager is not interested in those details.
      • Mention features you inherited from AB4 only if they are needed to explain your new features.  Reason: existing features will not earn you marks, and the audience is already familiar with AB4 features.
      • Each person should demo their main feature only. You are free to 'tie-in' other work under the main feature, but anything that cannot be tied-in to the main feature should be omitted from the demo (as those are not graded, showing them to the evaluators will only make the evaluation harder). For similar reasons, do not demo GUI inputs (but you can demo GUI outputs).
      • We recommend each person to start by giving an overview of the main feature before going into the details. That the evaluator informed of your main feature from the very start.
    • Structure:

      • Demo the product using the same executable you submitted, on your own laptop, using the TV.
      • It can be a sitting down demo: You'll be demonstrating the features using the TV while sitting down. But you may stand around the TV if you prefer that way.
      • It will be an uninterrupted demo: The audience members will not interrupt you during the demo. That means you should finish within the given time.
      • The demo should use a sufficient amount of realistic demo data.  e.g at least 20 contacts. Trying to demo a product using just 1-2 sample data creates a bad impression.
      • Dress code : The level of formality is up to you, but it is recommended that the whole team dress at the same level.
    • Optimizing the time:

      • Spend as much time as possible on demonstrating the actual product. Not recommended to use slides (if you do, use them sparingly) or videos or lengthy narrations.
        Avoid skits, re-enactments, dramatizations etc. This is not a sales pitch or an informercial. While you need to show how a user use the product to get value, but you don’t need to act like an imaginary user. For example, [Instead of this] Jim get’s a call from boss. "Ring ring", "hello", "oh hi Jim, can we postpone the meeting?" "Sure". Jim hang up and curses the boss under his breath. Now he starts typing ..etc. [do this] If Jim needs to postpone the meeting, he can type … It’s not that dramatization is bad or we don’t like it. We simply don’t have enough time for it.
        Note that CS2101 demo requirements may differ. Different context → Different requirements.
      • Rehearse the steps well and ensure you can do a smooth demo. Poor quality demos can affect your grade.
      • Don’t waste time repeating things the target audience already knows. e.g. no need to say things like "We are students from NUS, SoC".
      • Plan the demo to be in sync with the impression you want to create. For example, if you are trying to convince that the product is easy to use, show the easiest way to perform a task before you show the full command with all the bells and whistles.
    • Special circumstances:

      • If your main feature was not merged on time: inform the tutor and get permission to show the unmerged feature using your own version of the code. Obviously, unmerged features earn much less marks than a merged equivalent but something is better than nothing.
      • If you have no user visible features to show, you can still contribute to the demo by giving an overvie of the product (at the start) and/or giving a wrap of of the product (at the end).
      • If you are unable to come to the demo due to a valid reason, you can ask a team member to demo your feature. Remember to submit the evidence of your excuse e.g., MC to prof. The demo is part of module assessment and absence without a valid reason will cause you to lose marks.

    • Venue: Same as the tutorial venue unless informed otherwise.
    • Schedule: Your demo timing is same as your tutorial time in week 13.
      • Please arrive on time and remain outside the venue until called in.
      • There is an automatic penalty if you are not ready to start on time.
      • You should bring your own adapter if the display adapters available in your tutorial venue don't work for you.

    v1.4 Practical Exam

    Relevant: [Admin Project → Deliverables → Practical Exam ]

     

    Objectives:

    • Evaluate your manual testing skills, product evaluation skills, effort estimation skills
    • Peer-evaluate your product design , implementation effort , documentation quality

    When, where: Week 13 lecture

    Grading:

    • Your performance in the practical exam will be considered for your final grade (under the QA category and under Implementation category, about 10 marks in total).
    • You will be graded based on your effectiveness as a tester (e.g., the percentage of the bugs you found, the nature of the bugs you found) and how far off your evaluation/estimates are from the evaluator consensus. Explanation: we understand that you have limited expertise in this area; hence, we penalize only if your inputs don't seem to be based on a sincere effort to test/evaluate.
    • The bugs found in your product by others will affect your v1.4 marks. You will be given a chance to reject false-positive bug reports.

    Preparation:

    • Ensure that you can access the relevant issue tracker given below:
      -- for PE Dry Run (at v1.3): nus-cs2103-AY1819S1/pe-dry-run
      -- for PE (at v1.4): nus-cs2103-AY1819S1/pe (will open only near the actual PE)

    • Ensure you have access to a computer that is able to run module projects  e.g. has the right Java version.

    • Have a good screen grab tool with annotation features so that you can quickly take a screenshot of a bug, annotate it, and post in the issue tracker.

      • 💡 You can use Ctrl+V to paste a picture from the clipboard into a text box in GitHub issue tracker.
    • Charge your computer before coming to the PE session. The testing venue may not have enough charging points.

    During:

    1. Take note of your team to test. It will be given to you by the teaching team (distributed via IVLE gradebook).
    2. Download from IVLE all files submitted by the team (i.e. jar file, User Guide, Developer Guide, and Project Portfolio Pages) into an empty folder.
    3. [~40 minutes] Test the product and report bugs as described below:
    Testing instructions for PE and PE Dry Run
    • What to test:

      • PE Dry Run (at v1.3):
        • Test the product based on the User Guide (the UG is most likely accessible using the help command).
        • Do system testing first i.e., does the product work as specified by the documentation?. If there is time left, you can do acceptance testing as well i.e., does the product solve the problem it claims to solve?.
      • PE (at v1.4):
        • Test based on the Developer Guide (Appendix named Instructions for Manual Testing) and the User Guide. The testing instructions in the Developer Guide can provide you some guidance but if you follow those instructions strictly, you are unlikely to find many bugs. You can deviate from the instructions to probe areas that are more likely to have bugs.
        • Do system testing only i.e., verify actual behavior against documented behavior. Do not do acceptance testing.
    • What not to test:

      • Omit features that are driven by GUI inputs (e.g. buttons, menus, etc.) Reason: Only CLI-driven features can earn credit, as per given project constraints. Some features might have both a GUI-driven and CLI-driven ways to invoke them, in which case test only the CLI-driven way of invoking it.
      • Omit feature that existed in AB-4.
    • These are considered bugs:

      • Behavior differs from the User Guide
      • A legitimate user behavior is not handled e.g. incorrect commands, extra parameters
      • Behavior is not specified and differs from normal expectations e.g. error message does not match the error
      • Problems in the User Guide e.g., missing/incorrect info
    • Where to report bugs: Post bug in the following issue trackers (not in the team's repo):

    • Bug report format:

      • Post bugs as you find them (i.e., do not wait to post all bugs at the end) because the issue tracker will close exactly at the end of the allocated time.
      • Do not use team ID in bug reports. Reason: to prevent others copying your bug reports
      • Each bug should be a separate issue.
      • Write good quality bug reports; poor quality or incorrect bug reports will not earn credit.
      • Use a descriptive title.
      • Give a good description of the bug with steps to reproduce and screenshots.
      • Assign a severity to the bug report. Bug report without a priority label are considered severity.Low (lower severity bugs earn lower credit):

    Bug Severity labels:

    • severity.Low : A flaw that is unlikely to affect normal operations of the product. Appears only in very rare situations and causes a minor inconvenience only.
    • severity.Medium : A flaw that causes occasional inconvenience to some users but they can continue to use the product.
    • severity.High : A flaw that affects most users and causes major problems for users. i.e., makes the product almost unusable for most users.
    • About posting suggestions:

      • PE Dry Run (at v1.3): You can also post suggestions on how to improve the product. 💡 Be diplomatic when reporting bugs or suggesting improvements. For example, instead of criticising the current behavior, simply suggest alternatives to consider.
      • PE (at v1.4): Do not post suggestions.
    • If the product doesn't work at all: If the product fails catastrophically e.g., cannot even launch, you can test the fallback team allocated to you. But in this case you must inform us immediately after the session so that we can send your bug reports to the correct team.

    1. [~50 minutes] Evaluate the following aspects. Note down your evaluation in a hard copy (as a backup). Submit via TEAMMATES.

      • A. Cohesiveness of product features []: Do the features fit together and match the stated target user and the value proposition?

        • unable to judge: You are unable to judge this aspect for some reason.
        • low: One of these
          • target user is too general  i.e. wider than AB4
          • target user and/or value proposition not clear from the user guide
          • features don't seem to fit together for the most part
        • medium: Some features fit together but some don't.
        • high: All features fit together but the features are not very high value to the target user.
        • excellent: The target user is clearly defined (not too general) and almost all new features are of high-value to the target user. i.e. the product is very attractive to the target user.
      • B. Quality of user docs []: Evaluate based on the parts of the user guide written by the person, as reproduced in the project portfolio. Evaluate from an end-user perspective.

        • unable to judge: Less than 1 page worth of UG content written by the student.
        • low: Hard to understand, often inaccurate or missing important information.
        • medium: Needs some effort to understand; some information is missing.
        • high: Mostly easy to follow. Only a few areas need improvements.
        • excellent: Easy to follow and accurate. Just enough information, visuals, examples etc. (not too much either). Understandable to the target end user.
      • C. Quality of developer docs []: Evaluate based on the developer docs cited/reproduced in the respective project portfolio page. Evaluate from the perspective of a new developer trying to understand how the features are implemented.

        • unable to judge: One of these
          • less than 0.5 pages worth of content.
          • other problems in the document  e.g. looks like included wrong content.
        • low: One of these
          • Very small amount of content (i.e., 0.5 - 1 page).
          • Hardly any use to the reader (i.e., content doesn't make much sense or redundant).
          • Uses ad-hoc diagrams where UML diagrams could have been used instead.
          • Multiple notation errors in UML diagrams.
        • medium: Some diagrams, some descriptions, but does not help the reader that much  e.g. overly complicated diagrams.
        • high: Enough diagrams (at lest two kinds of UML diagrams used) and enough descriptions (about 2 pages worth) but explanations are not always easy to follow.
        • excellent: Easy to follow. Just enough information (not too much). Minimum repetition of content/diagrams. Good use of diagrams to complement text descriptions. Easy to understand diagrams with just enough details rather than very complicated diagrams that are hard to understand.
      • D. Depth of feature []: Evaluate the feature done by the student for difficulty, depth, and completeness. Note: examples given below assume that AB4 did not have the commands edit, undo, and redo.

        • unable to judge: You are unable to judge this aspect for some reason.
        • low : An easy feature  e.g. make the existing find command case insensitive.
        • medium : Moderately difficult feature, barely acceptable implementation  e.g. an edit command that requires the user to type all fields, even the ones that are not being edited.
        • high: One of the below
          • A moderately difficult feature but fully implemented  e.g. an edit command that allows editing any field.
          • A difficult feature with a reasonable implementation but some aspects are not covered  undo/redo command that only allows a single undo/redo.
        • excellent: A difficult feature, all reasonable aspects are fully implemented  undo/redo command that allows multiple undo/redo.
      • E. Amount of work []: Evaluate the amount of work, on a scale of 0 to 30.

        • Consider this PR (history command) as 5 units of effort which means this PR (undo/redo command) is about 15 points of effort. Given that 30 points matches an effort twice as that needed for the undo/redo feature (which was given as an example of an A grade project), we expect most students to be have efforts lower than 20.
        • Consider the main feature only. Exclude GUI inputs, but consider GUI outputs of the feature. Count all implementation/testing/documentation work as mentioned in that person's PPP. Also look at the actual code written by the person. We understand that it is not possible to know exactly which part of the code is for the main feature; make a best-guess judgement call based on the available info.
        • Do not give a high value just to be nice. If your estimate is wildly inaccurate, it means you are unable to estimate the effort required to implement a feature in a project that you are supposed to know well at this point. You will lose marks if that is the case.

    Processing PE Bug Reports:

    There will be a review period for you to respond to the bug reports you received.

    Duration: The review period will start around 1 day after the PE (exact time to be announced) and will last until the following Wednesday midnight. However, you are recommended to finish this task ASAP, to minimize cutting into your exam preparation work.

    Bug reviewing is recommended to be done as a team as some of the decisions need team consensus.

    Instructions for Reviewing Bug Reports

    • First, don't freak out if there are lot of bug reports. Many can be duplicates and some can be false positives. In any case, we anticipate that all of these products will have some bugs and our penalty for bugs is not harsh. Furthermore, it depends on the severity of the bug. Some bug may not even be penalized.

    • Do not edit the subject or the description. Do not close bug reports. Your response (if any) should be added as a comment.

    • If the bug is reported multiple times, mark all copies EXCEPT one as duplicates using the duplicate tag (if the duplicates have different severity levels, you should keep the one with the highest severity). In addition, use this technique to indicate which issue they are duplicates of. Duplicates can be omitted from processing steps given below.

    • If a bug seems to be for a different product (i.e. wrongly assigned to your team), let us know (email prof).

    • Decide if it is a real bug and apply ONLY one of these labels.

    Response Labels:

    • response.Accepted: You accept it as a bug.
    • response.Rejected: What tester treated as a bug is in fact the expected behavior. The penalty for rejecting a bug using an unjustifiable explanation is higher than the penalty if the same bug was accepted. You can reject bugs that you inherited from AB4.
    • response.CannotReproduce: You are unable to reproduce the behavior reported in the bug after multiple tries.
    • response.IssueUnclear: The issue description is not clear.
    • If applicable, decide the type of bug. Bugs without type- are considered type-FunctionalityBug by default (which are liable to a heavier penalty):

    Bug Type Labels:

    • type-FunctionalityBug : the bug is a flaw in how the product works.
    • type-DocumentationBug : the bug is in the documentation.
    • If you disagree with the original severity assigned to the bug, you may change it to the correct level, in which case add a comment justifying the change. All such changes will be double-checked by the teaching team and unreasonable lowering of severity will be penalized extra.:

    Bug Severity labels:

    • severity.Low : A flaw that is unlikely to affect normal operations of the product. Appears only in very rare situations and causes a minor inconvenience only.
    • severity.Medium : A flaw that causes occasional inconvenience to some users but they can continue to use the product.
    • severity.High : A flaw that affects most users and causes major problems for users. i.e., makes the product almost unusable for most users.
    • Decide who should fix the bug. Use the Assignees field to assign the issue to that person(s). There is no need to actually fix the bug though. It's simply an indication/acceptance of responsibility. If there is no assignee, we will distribute the penalty for that bug (if any) among all team members.

    • Add an explanatory comment explaining your choice of labels and assignees.

    Time/venue: week 13 lecture slot

    Outcomes

    🅿️ Project

    W13.1 Can system-test a product

    Covered by:

    W13.2 Can evaluate a technical effort

    Covered by:

    W13.3 Can demo a product

    Covered by:

    Tutorial 13


    For W13.1 Can system-test a product

    Covered by:

    For W13.2 Can evaluate a technical effort

    Covered by:

    For W13.3 Can demo a product

    Covered by:

    Lecture 13