Code Review 00: Hex
Due: 2026 Oct 6, 11:59pm
In this code review, you will work in a small group of 3 or fewer people in total to perform a code review on a few hand-selected submissions to the P01_Hex project.
Only one person needs to submit to the course LMS page. Just be sure both names are in the readme.
Collaboration
This is a small group project of no more than three, although you can work on it individually.
The table below provides the acceptable level of collaboration for this project.
| group | peers† | ai | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| understand | ✔ |
✔ |
✗ |
may work with peers† to understand the problem. |
| develop | ✔ |
✔ |
✗ |
may work with a peer† to "whiteboard" a solution |
| write | ✔ |
✗ |
✗ |
writing code and text must be done by group |
| debug | ✔ |
✗ |
✔ |
debugging done by group; may use AI (fix grammar) |
Peer†
In the table above, the checkmarks under the peer† column are limited to other students currently enrolled in COS265. You are not allowed to work with anybody outside this course, such as a roommate, someone online, past students, etc.
You may always get help from any of the instructional staff (Instructor, TAs) or any CSE Helpdesk tutor who is able to help with COS265.
Note
You are welcome to invite the other students in your small group as Developer member, so everyone can edit a single readme.md.
See Setup Document and Syllabus for more details.
Important
Keep in mind that these submissions are the work of your peers. Try to remain as objective and constructive as possible, as you could be reviewing the work of your teammates / classmates!
If you recognize your own work, you are free to claim ownership, or you may remain silent on the ownership. That is up to you.
Requirements
Review the HexBoard.java file (not HexBoardStats.java) for each of the submissions.
Spend approximately 12–20 minutes studying each submission.
Use the supplied readme.md file as a starting point for your report.
Provide an answer to the following questions for each submission:
- How is the clarity of the code? Report on clarity of algorithm, comments, variable names, names of helper functions, etc.
- What is unique about this approach? What is clever about this approach?
- Notice any correctness bugs? Where, and what input will break the solution?
- Notice any efficiency bugs? Where, and what input will stress the solution?
- Any other comments?
Then, provide a bit of reflection over this exercise.
- What were some common features of the solutions that you reviewed?
- How has seeing other solutions changed the way you view your own submission?
- List any other comments you have. Feel free to provide any feedback on how much your learned from doing the review and whether you enjoyed doing it.
How I prepped the files
I shuffled the names of the chosen submissions, then I copied the contents of HexBoard.java into a fresh copy of the starting framework for each of the submissions.
I have previewed the code to make sure there is no personally identifying information.
You should be able to load and run each submission in IntelliJ.
Submission
Update the readme file, then stage, commit, and push to CSE GitLab. Only one person in the group needs to make a submission.
Grading Rubric
| Reviews | |
| 3pts | Reasonable review of Subject 0 |
| 3pts | Reasonable review of Subject 1 |
| 3pts | Reasonable review of Subject 2 |
| Reflection | |
| 3pts | Reasonable reflection |