Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
21 lines (20 loc) · 2.08 KB

F16_lab03.md

File metadata and controls

21 lines (20 loc) · 2.08 KB

Arthur Silverstein and Eric Vaishnav

  • (a): A maze game where the player controls a dot with WASD. The goal is to move through a randomly generated maze one square at a time to reach the goal tile.
  • (b): ..* As a user, I can press W to move upwards so that I get closer to the finish square ..* As a user, I can press A to move leftwards so that I get closer to the finish square ..* As a user, I can press S to move downwards so that I get closer to the finish square ..* As a user, I can press D to move rightwards so that I get closer to the finish square ..* As a user, I can click 'New' to generate a new maze, so that I can replay the game ..* As a user, I can click 'Solve' to show the optimal path through the maze, so I can see the best solution after finishing or giving up ..* As a user, I can click 'How to' to show a help window, so I can learn how to play ..* As a user, I can click 'High Scores' to show a high scores window, so I can compare my performance against past ones. ..* As a user, I can use the menu bar to access settings and alternate modes, so that I can customize the game to my liking
  • (c): The software runs fine without issues. It creates a fully playable, functional maze game described in part (a)
  • (d): As a user, I can click a game in the High Scores panel to view a replay of it, so that I can view previous games. As a user, I can hover over settings in the settings menu, so that I can see what they do.
  • (e): The readme is thorough and detailed. It could be updated with better organization and more specific instruction, so new users can orient themselves more easily.
  • (f): The build.xml is good. Targets have descriptions and there doesn't seem any legacy stuff
  • (g): The issues look good. They're relatively clear and reasonable, and there's plenty of them
  • (h): We haven't added any issues yet
  • (i): The code is organized, but not that well. There are some comments but not that many, some of the methods bloated, and all files are in one package
  • (j): There almost no unit tests. The one test file has errors. We could expand test coverage by writing tests