Web and Mobile Development - Final Project (100 Points)
Assignment Goals
The goals of this assignment are:- To demonstrate the fundamental concepts of programming in a unified project
- To work effectively as a member of a small group using collaborative tools for software development
The Assignment
If (and only if) you are using GitHub to submit, you can clone this assignment from GitHub Classroom at https://classroom.github.com/g/mP1CDFqH. Otherwise, you may skip this step!In this project, you will propose a topic of your choosing and a group of at least 2 and up to 3 total members. The project must be approved by the instructor before it may commence, but the topic is entirely up to you. Multidisciplinary projects with a broader impact are encouraged, and you are welcome to collaborate with a stakeholder outside the department for inspiration on potential projects (this person is not to contribute code, only disciplinary context). You are also encouraged to identify a stakeholder (please see me for assistance in this regard) who will advise you on the design of your project and test the final implementation.
You will use git or another version control system to coordinate between your team.
First, propse a project along with its RESTful interface definition. Include your calls and data schemas (as if you were defining a Swagger document). Your interface should include at least one authenticated user database or NoSQL lookup, authenticated with OAuth or a JWT token. Then, implement your project server and client! Finally, prepare as a team a project presentation using a screencast (such as Screencast-O-Matic) that you will share with the class for final presentations. Alternatively, you may choose to present to a live class audience, as time permits.
Some possible projects include:
- Online debugging table for introductory students: a service-based mobile-friendly site that supports exception posting, commenting, resolution, and searching
- Canvas Course Manager: An organizational utility for students using Canvas with a personal iCal generator for your personal calendar
Extra Credit (Up to 30%)
If you deploy your project publicly and make your repository/repositories publicly open source (please note this in your README), I will award 10% extra credit to your project. Additionally, if you propose to deploy your project to a stakeholder group, and successfully do so, I will award 20% extra credit to your project! Please note that you must propose the stakeholder group to the instructor when the interface and/or project proposal are due, and the instructor and stakeholder group must agree up front to participate!
Submission
In your submission, please include answers to any questions asked on the assignment page in your README file. If you wrote code as part of this assignment, please describe your design, approach, and implementation in your README file as well. Finally, include answers to the following questions:- Describe what you did, how you did it, what challenges you encountered, and how you solved them.
- Please answer any questions found throughout the narrative of this assignment.
- If collaboration with a buddy was permitted, did you work with a buddy on this assignment? If so, who? If not, do you certify that this submission represents your own original work?
- Please identify any and all portions of your submission that were not originally written by you (for example, code originally written by your buddy, or anything taken or adapted from a non-classroom resource). It is always OK to use your textbook and instructor notes; however, you are certifying that any portions not designated as coming from an outside person or source are your own original work.
- Approximately how many hours it took you to finish this assignment (I will not judge you for this at all...I am simply using it to gauge if the assignments are too easy or hard)?
- Your overall impression of the assignment. Did you love it, hate it, or were you neutral? One word answers are fine, but if you have any suggestions for the future let me know.
- Using the grading specifications on this page, discuss briefly the grade you would give yourself and why. Discuss each item in the grading specification.
- Any other concerns that you have. For instance, if you have a bug that you were unable to solve but you made progress, write that here. The more you articulate the problem the more partial credit you will receive (it is fine to leave this blank).
Assignment Rubric
| Description | Pre-Emerging (< 50%) | Beginning (50%) | Progressing (85%) | Proficient (100%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algorithm Implementation (40%) | The algorithm fails on the test inputs due to major issues, or the program fails to compile and/or run | The algorithm fails on the test inputs due to one or more minor issues | The algorithm is implemented to solve the problem correctly according to given test inputs, but would fail if executed in a general case due to a minor issue or omission in the algorithm design or implementation | A reasonable algorithm is implemented to solve the problem which correctly solves the problem according to the given test inputs, and would be reasonably expected to solve the problem in the general case |
| Test Cases (10%) | Testing was performed outside of the unit test framework, or not performed at all | Trivial test cases are provided in a unit test framework | Test cases that cover some, but not all, boundary cases and branches of the program are provided | Test cases that cover all boundary cases and branches of the program are provided |
| Service Endpoint Interface Design (20%) | Improper service endpoints are given, or use verbs instead of a CRUD model | An arbitrary mapping of service endpoints is given to HTTP verbs (for example, only GET or POST verbs are used) | Some service endpoints are ambiguous or improperly mapped | Service endpoints are thoroughly defined for the application chosen, with CRUD endpoints that represent nouns that are appropriately mapped to HTTP verbs |
| Code Quality and Documentation (10%) | Code commenting and structure are absent, or code structure departs significantly from best practice, and/or the code departs significantly from the style guide | Code commenting and structure is limited in ways that reduce the readability of the program, and/or there are minor departures from the style guide | Code documentation is present that re-states the explicit code definitions, and/or code is written that mostly adheres to the style guide | Code is documented using Swagger at non-trivial points in a manner that enhances the readability of the program, and code is written according to the style guide |
| Presentation (10%) | No presentation was provided, the presentation could not be viewed, or the presentation was not on the subject of the final project | A presentation was provided that summarizes the project, but does not provide a demo or discuss broader impacts | A presentation was provided that summarizes the project, provides a demo, and discusses broader impacts | A presentation was provided that that summarizes the project, provides a demo, discusses broader impacts, and highlights challenges overcome and methodologies for developing the system as a group |
| Writeup and Submission (10%) | An incomplete submission is provided | The program is submitted, but not according to the directions in one or more ways (for example, because it is lacking a readme writeup) | The program is submitted according to the directions with a minor omission or correction needed | The program is submitted according to the directions, including a readme writeup describing the solution |
Please refer to the Style Guide for code quality examples and guidelines.