Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Peer Review - Unclear Critical Assumptions #194

Open
Tracked by #188
markacruz opened this issue Oct 28, 2024 · 0 comments
Open
Tracked by #188

Peer Review - Unclear Critical Assumptions #194

markacruz opened this issue Oct 28, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
hazard-analysis Related to the Hazard Analysis (Deliverable 3) peer-review Feedback from peers

Comments

@markacruz
Copy link

Artifact Under Review

  • Critical Assumptions

Team Number for Team Doing the Review

  • Team 2

Description of Issue

  • It says "Testing Module is provided with automated tests that have enough coverage", but what exactly is enough coverage? It may be valuable to be specific (ie. the type of tests needed, especially for edge cases)
  • For "Code smells identified by the Refactoring Module always involve code that could be more energy
    efficient.", how will the module handle code smells that might improve readability or maintainability but don’t directly impact energy efficiency
@Sevhena Sevhena added peer-review Feedback from peers hazard-analysis Related to the Hazard Analysis (Deliverable 3) labels Oct 28, 2024
@Sevhena Sevhena moved this to Todo in SCO - Project Board Oct 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
hazard-analysis Related to the Hazard Analysis (Deliverable 3) peer-review Feedback from peers
Projects
Status: Todo
Development

When branches are created from issues, their pull requests are automatically linked.

2 participants