Grading will be carried out based on the core requirements only.
- Bonus additions, if implemented, should not break the game code or affect its core functionality.
Any breakage caused by additions will be penalised according to the rubrics. - Each bonus addition, if successfully implemented by a member, gains the group one bonus mark.
- Further additions by the same member will not gain any bonus marks until other members of the group have also implemented bonus additions.
Teams may propose bonus additions
A score between 0-3 is given for each category. There are 5 categories in total:
-
Abstraction
Assess how well the game is subdivided into methods and parts that are easy to understand. -
Encapsulation
Assesses whether data and methods are grouped appropriately, in ways that improve understanding of the code. -
Clarity of code
Assesses good programming practices in naming of variables and methods, and in writing code that is easy to understand. -
User-friendliness
Assesses whether the game provides useful information to players, whether for debugging or playing. -
Functionality
Assesses whether the game actually works.
Max score: 15
0 marks — Methods rely heavily on underlying implementation
1 mark — Methods occasionally rely on underlying implementation
2 marks — Methods have little reliance on underlying implementation, but could be better abstracted
3 marks — Methods do not rely on underlying implementation and are appropriately abstracted
0 marks — Non-existent encapsulation
1 mark — Game relies unnecessarily on variables and functions which are not part of the game or piece objects
2 marks — Required variables and functions are encapsulated within the appropriate objects
3 marks — Required variables and functions are encapsulated and appropriately defined (prudent use of @staticmethod and/or @classmethod)
0 marks — Attributes and methods have obtuse names; code is not possible to understand
1 mark — Poor naming of attributes and methods; code is difficult to understand
2 marks — Attributes and methods are appropriately named, and code is written with intuitive logic. Unnecessary commented code left behind.
3 marks — Attributes and methods are appropriately named, methods have helpful docstrings, code is intuitive and easy to read.
0 marks — No useful output for debugging
1 mark — Hard to tell what is wrong when testing the game; unhelpful console messages
2 marks — Console messages indicate a problem and aid debugging somewhat
3 marks — Console output is helpful for debugging and point to a clear, helpful cause
0 marks — Game does not run
1 mark — Game is not able to run more than 2 turns
2 marks — Game mostly works, but is unable to execute a chess game as expected
3 marks — Game passes mosts tests, and failing tests does not affect core functionality