Not agree with bug 3, precision actually was. 8,5 not set in the code. Not agree with bug 3, precision actually was

Transcription

1 Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Feedback Presence SUM Matrikkel Rühm [5] [1] [2] [1] [1] [10] Feedback to students A rühm 0 0 No submission found A rühm For Bug 3. Actually the variable can't be <1 and >53 at the same time. You are right the condition is useless, but not because it was checked before, but because it will always be 10 false A rühm A rühm 4, Not agree with bug 3, precision actually was 9,5 not set in the code B rühm B rühm B rühm 3, ,5 5 out 7 issues have been analyzed. B rühm 4, Not agree with bug 3, precision actually was 8,5 not set in the code B rühm Bug 6: did not explain why you suppose that equals() is symmetric; Bug 8: but what about 9 memory overuse? B rühm B rühm B rühm For Bug 3. Actually the variable can't be <1 and >53 at the same time. You are right the condition is useless, but not because it was checked before, but because it will always be 10 false B rühm Bug 6: did not explain why you suppose that equals() is symmetric; Bug 8: but what about 9 memory overuse? B rühm 3, ,5 5 out 7 issues have been analyzed. B rühm B rühm 3,5 0, Bug 2,4: didn't explain why, Bug 3: the question is whether method equals() remains symmetric; Bug 8: I see that you tried to investigate the problem, but didn't provide meaningful 8 explanation B rühm 3,5 0, Bug 2,4: didn't explain why, Bug 3: the question is whether method equals() remains symmetric; Bug 8: I see that you tried to investigate the problem, but didn't provide meaningful 8 explanation B rühm 0 0 No submission found A rühm Bug 4,7: unclear explanation A rühm : Why?; 1.7: And how it will affect the app during run-time? 2. I am agree that finding all possible run-time errors is undecidable, but the question was to compare static analysis vs manual inspection, you just superficially mentioned this in your answer.

2 A rühm B rühm B rühm B rühm B rühm B rühm B rühm 0 0 No submission found B rühm Issue1: very superficial analysis while this issue was analyzed in instructions, issue6: here FindBugs care about precision, not about comparing objects; issue7: didn't explain what is the problem. No analysis for possible null 8 pointer deref B rühm B rühm B rühm Issue1: very superficial analysis while this issue was analyzed in instructions, issue6: here FindBugs care about precision, not about comparing objects; issue7: didn't explain what is the problem. No analysis for possible null 8 pointer deref B rühm B rühm 4, : if we checked variable before then no need 9,5 to re-check again, useless code, but won't harm B rühm 0 0 No submission found B rühm Issue1: superficial analysis; issue6: why you think so?? How the program will behave after 9 it? B rühm B rühm Issue1: superficial analysis; issue6: why you think so?? How the program will behave after 9 it? B rühm A rühm Very well written report. Analysis of all possible 10 defects were nicely done. B rühm Good feedback and and other parts were correct as 10 well. Nothing else really to add. B rühm Did not submit homework. B rühm In general neat report. Would have been nice to add code examples in the report as well. All in all well 10 done. B rühm Decent report all very clearly presented and analysed. Very well written report. Analysis of all possible B rühm defects were nicely done. Neat and easy to read report, well done. You mention that static code analysis finds bugs faster but generally I would say it finds possible bugs and to determine weather they are really bugs or not may B rühm take a lot of time.

3 B rühm done. In general neat report. Would have been nice to add code examples in the report as well. All in all well Everything was well done and explained. Code snippets of the possible defects would have been ok B rühm but this is a really minor thing. B rühm primary. B rühm written report. B rühm and commented. B rühm primary. Possible defects were very well commented and explained. Would have been nice to see exact parts of the code were bug occurred in a report but that is not Compariosn part kind of ends in a way that there should be something more, Other than that well Would have been nice to see exact parts of the code in report as well. Other than that all was well done Possible defects were very well commented and explained. Would have been nice to see exact parts of the code were bug occurred in a report but that is not Everything was well done and explained. Code snippets of the possible defects would have been ok B rühm but this is a really minor thing. B rühm and commented. B rühm Would have been nice to see exact parts of the code in report as well. Other than that all was well done Compariosn part kind of ends in a way that there should be something more, Other than that well written report. B rühm Not present in lab and did not submit homework. Good feedback and and other parts were correct as B rühm well. Nothing else really to add. Neat and easy to read report, well done. You mention that static code analysis finds bugs faster but generally I would say it finds possible bugs and to determine weather they are really bugs or not may B rühm take a lot of time. B rühm I liket that you pointed out exact places in code as well in addition to explanations. Well written and 10 explained report. A rühm Really good report everything was throughly 10 explained and analysed. B rühm Missed from thte lab. Very good to read and follow report, nicely done. Many did not like the code too 9 much so it is not your problem really :) B rühm You definitely had one of the best reports this time. I would say you had most complete answer for last points and very constructive feedback. Very well 10 done. B rühm Neat report, nothing really to complain about. Good 10 job. B rühm Good job guys. Nice report where everything were 10 well explained and analysed. Nothing were missing. B rühm Missed lab session and did not submit report. B rühm Missed from lab session. Good report. All was correct 9 and presented in nicely manner.

4 B rühm Missed lab session and did not submit report. B rühm I especially liked how you added code snippets to support your conclusions and analysis. Well written 10 and explained report. B rühm Good report all was well written and explained. Not 10 much more to add or complain about. B rühm Missed lab session and did not submit report. B rühm Missed lab session and did not submit report. High quality report as always. Nice viewpoints and B rühm suggestions. Really enjoyable to read. B rühm Good job guys. Nice report where everything were 10 well explained and analysed. Nothing were missing. B rühm Missed lab session and did not submit report. B rühm You definitely had one of the best reports this time. I would say you had most complete answer for last points and very constructive feedback. Very well 10 done. B rühm Very enjoyable to read lab report again. Everything were really well explained and additional materials worked through independently, what is good to see. Do not know ways how this report could have been 10 written better :) B rühm Really good report everything was throughly 10 explained and analysed. B rühm Good report all was well written and explained. Not 10 much more to add or complain about. B rühm Neat report, nothing really to complain about. Good 10 job. B rühm I especially liked how you added code snippets to support your conclusions and analysis. Well written 10 and explained report. B rühm Very enjoyable to read lab report again. Everything were really well explained and additional materials worked through independently, what is good to see. Do not know ways how this report could have been 10 written better :) rühm You have written Static code analysis uses certain patterns to find possible issues, and a lot faster than a human. The term than a human is probably not the best way to argue. Its too general term and could create 10 confusion. B rühm Well written report. You have written Static code analysis uses certain patterns to find possible issues, and a lot faster than a human. The term than a human is probably not the best way to argue. Its too general term and could create B rühm confusion.

5 B rühm 4, In (7) you stated that Most likely it was Intended., but havent given any reason why you think so? I deduct 0.25 points for this. You were absent in lab, and your answer format is different from what was explained 8,75 in Lab. B rühm Present in Lab. Report not found. B rühm Well written report. B rühm B rühm B rühm B rühm B rühm B rühm For answer 3, instead of using general terms such as soft-spot and static code analysis is good, try to use technical terms such as true positive, false positive, FindBug recommendations which would 10 create less confusion. B rühm B rühm Well written report. Were absent in lab. B rühm For answer 3, instead of using general terms such as soft-spot and static code analysis is good, try to use technical terms such as true positive, false positive, FindBug recommendations which would 10 create less confusion. B rühm B rühm Well written report. B rühm B rühm B rühm A rühm Well written report. Nice to see parts of the 10 code while explaining in report. A rühm Well written report. B rühm Absent. Report not found. B rühm Well written report. Nice to see parts of the 10 code while explaining in report. B rühm B rühm B rühm Well written report. B rühm Absent in lab. You did not write about the General comments and conclusions on 8 performing the lab (Feedback). B rühm B rühm B rühm

6 B rühm B rühm B rühm B rühm B rühm B rühm B rühm rühm Good report! A rühm 4, ,5 Analysed only 6 bugs in task-1, everything else is fine. A rühm 4, Missed to mention bug names, Everything else is 9,5 good. A rühm No submission A rühm Good report! A rühm No submission B rühm Good report! Missed to mention bug names, Everything else is B rühm 4, ,5 good. B rühm 2,5 0 1, Only few bugs analysed in task-1, and missing task2 B rühm No submission B rühm 4, ,5 Analysed only 6 bugs in task-1, everything else is fine.