【个人博客作业II】代码复审结果

【代码复审结果】

• General

• Does the code work? Does it perform its intended function, the logic is correct etc.
  • 基本完成个人任务需求；
  • 未实现功能：带分数生成，括号支持不完善（无（1+5）×（3-5）这种，也有7/9/2*8这样存在二义性的情况出现），除零/负数的规避处理，规范化输出（N. 运算式）；
  • 逻辑基本正确，有较为完善的异常处理机制；
• Is all the code easily understood?
  • 较为易读，有较为完整的注释，命名直截了当，用规范化的接口说明；
• Does it conform to your agreed coding conventions? These will usually cover location of braces, variable and function names, line length, indentations, formatting, and comments.
  • 因为使用的语言不一代码风格差异较大，括号换行处理方式不一，其他基本一致；
• Is there any redundant or duplicate code?
  • Equation.cpp里的solve函数没有用到，最后用的是重写的solve1；
• Is the code as modular as possible?
  • 模块化程度较高，分数，表达式，IO处理各成一类，分工细致；
• Can any global variables be replaced?
  • 仅用了宏函数，无全局变量；
• Is there any commented out code?
  • 有注释掉的代码；
• Do loops have a set length and correct termination conditions?
  • 均有设置，不过也存在较为繁冗的判断条件，如Equaltion::solve1中的 while (signTop != 0 && icp(str[i])<=isp(signStack[signTop - 1]) && !RMeetL)//这里检查符号栈是否为空，且判断符号优先级顺序，并检查左右符号是否已经完成匹配，不过其实只需要判断栈空即可进入循环，对于括号匹配和优先级顺序判断可以嵌入到if else语句分支中，相应设置break即可；
• Can any of the code be replaced with library functions?
  • 没有可用库函数替代的函数
• Can any logging or debugging code be removed?
  • 无相关代码

• Security

  • Are all data inputs checked (for the correct type, length, format, and range) and encoded?
    • 执行批改功能时文件需规范化文件格式，命令行参数输入检查比较完善
  • Where third-party utilities are used, are returning errors being caught?
    • 未使用第三方程序
  • Are output values checked and encoded?
    • 有较全面的异常分析和相应的错误码输出，并写有专门的错误处理函数
  • Are invalid parameter values handled?
    • 由专门的错误处理函数void exitErr(char* info, int errNum)

• Documentation

  • Do comments exist and describe the intent of the code?
    • 有较为简洁的Readme文档
  • Are all functions commented?
    • 暂无，下同
  • Is any unusual behavior or edge-case handling described?
  • Is the use and function of third-party libraries documented?
  • Are data structures and units of measurement explained?
  • Is there any incomplete code? If so, should it be removed or flagged with a suitable marker like ‘TODO’?

• Testing

• Is the code testable? i.e. don’t add too many or hide dependencies, unable to initialize objects, test frameworks can use methods etc.
  • 可以测试，无过多依赖对象，大部分在函数内部已经完成相应初始化操作
• Do tests exist and are they comprehensive? i.e. has at least your agreed on code coverage.
  • 无测试单元，下同
• Do unit tests actually test that the code is performing the intended functionality?
• Are arrays checked for ‘out-of-bound’ errors?
• Could any test code be replaced with the use of an existing API?

• Summary

  • 程序代码较为规范，设计思路清晰，模块化程度高，可读性强，有详细的注释，在输入输出等安全处理方面有仔细考虑过，并限制了较为严格的条件来避免复杂的错误情况，唯一不足就是功能还有待完善，因为除零异常检查尚不完善致使程序测试存在一定的难度，有待进一步改进

【个人博客作业II】代码复审结果

原文：http://www.cnblogs.com/kibbon/p/4847672.html