Greetings, folks: This Wednesday (04.06.2005) at noon in POST 307, we will be reviewing packages from hackyReview. 1) org.hackystat.app.review.analysis.cache 2) org.hackystat.app.review.analysis.stream (optional)
Please make sure you install the latest version of Jupiter and Jupiter sensor. Otherwise you might not send the correct data to the server. ---------------------------------- To perform this review: 1) Install and/or update (a) the Eclipse Jupiter plug-in and (b) The Hackystat Jupiter sensor. 2) Checkout/Update the hackyReview module from CVS. hackyReview depends on [hackyBuild, hackyKernel, hackyReport, hackyStatistics, hackyStdExt]. Please check out any of these modules if you do not have them. 3) Select "ReviewAnalysisCache" as the ReviewID. ---------------------------------- Please focus your attention on: org.hackystat.app.review.analysis.cache Background Information: Please try to invoke the actual "Review Comparison" and "Review ID Analysis" in the Review category of the Analyses in public Hackystat. ---------------------------------- Here are some questions to consider: 1) Category Item Problem: This is not directly related to the source code I asked this time. Currently we are using default category items. For example, review severity has "Critical", "Major", "Normal", "Minor", "Trivial", and "Unset". However Jupiter can support the user defined items so that it would be possible to specify something like "Blocker", "Normal", "Trivial". In this case, the current review analysis can not deal with it because the label is hard coded. It would be easy to check items form SDT because I added the additional category items and order. it can be used right a way for the review ID analysis . However, "Open" and "Closed" string is hard coded in the closed and opened number of issues in the review ID summary. Furthermore, for the review comparison analysis, different review ID has different category so that how can I deal with the dirrent category to make a table? 2) Cache Issue: Cache is only in the user level while project level does not have a cache. Currently this seems good enough to give the proper response to users. However, if a lot of review data are collected in the future, would it be better to consider project level cache? Thank you for reviewing the code! Takuya ------------------------------------------------------------- Supplemental Links and Resources: The Hackystat Code Review Guidelines: * http://hackydev.ics.hawaii.edu/hackyDevSite/doc/Review.html The Elements of Hacky Style: * http://hackydev.ics.hawaii.edu/hackyDevSite/doc/EHS.html Jupiter Code Review Tool documentation: * http://csdl.ics.hawaii.edu/Tools/Jupiter/Core/doc/UsersGuide.html Hackystat Jupiter Sensor documentation: * http://hackystat.ics.hawaii.edu/hackystat/docbook/apas15.html ================================ Takuya Yamashita E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================
