[Exercise Discussion] T4L1/view-commits

[damithc]

Existing exercise check

• I have verified that this exercise is not yet already in discussion, in progress, or exists

Lesson

https://nus-cs2103-ay2526s1.github.io/website/book/gitAndGithub/show/

Exercise learning outcomes

Able to view and understand the diff of a specific commit

Exercise setup

Inputs to the new.sh:

Exercise name: view-commits
Tags (space separated): git-diff git-show
Requires Git? (defaults to y)  [y/N]: y
Requires Github? (defaults to y)  [y/N]: y
Exercise repo type (local, remote, or ignore) (defaults to 'local'): remote
Exercise repo name (defaults to 'view_commits'): duty-roster
Git-Mastery Github repository title (defaults to ''): gm-duty-roster
Create fork of repository? (defaults to y)  [y/N]: N

Clone the repo git-mastery/gm-duty-roster as duty-roster.

Questions to ask:

1. In February, who was replaced in the Wednesday duty roster?
2. In February, who joined the Tuesday duty roster?
3. In April, what were the new names added to the duty rosters? Give the list of names as one line, separated by spaces.
4. In January, who were in the Tuesday duty roster? Give the list of names as one line, separated by spaces.

Instructions for students

Scenario: The duty-roster repo contains five files, each one containing names of people assigned to a duty roster for a specific day of the week. For example, Monday.txt contains names of people assigned to duties on Mondays. These files are updated monthly, to record any changes to duty assignments.

Task: Answer the questions in the answers.txt, by examining the relevant commits in the duty-roster repo.

Exercise grading

Check answers.

Requires remote repository?

https://github.com/git-mastery/gm-duty-roster

Additional remarks

No response

[damithc]

@woojiahao Pls check if anything amiss in the given details, inputs to new.sh in particular.

[woojiahao]

@damithc

As discussed before, we can use the Git-Autograder's answer file format to either have students submit answers as a list:

Q: ...
A:
- first
- second
- third

Which the parser will detect as [first, second, third]

Or we can have them submit each line separately and do post-processing later.

My preference is with the first since it's minimal new syntax but not opposed to the other syntax as well!

---

Another question: is there a specific reason why we're opting to clone the repo instead of recreating it? Seems like we don't really need to clone it in this case?

If we're planning to make it clonable, the configuration would look more like:

Exercise name: view-commits
Tags (space separated): git-diff git-show
Requires Git? (defaults to y)  [y/N]: y
Requires Github? (defaults to y)  [y/N]: y
Exercise repo type (local, remote, or ignore) (defaults to 'local'): remote
Exercise repo name (defaults to 'view_commits'): duty-roster
Git-Mastery Github repository title (defaults to ''): gm-duty-roster
Create fork of repository? (defaults to y)  [y/N]: N

[woojiahao]

I see that we're reusing the repository. If that's the case, I'm okay with cloning the remote repository directly as well.

[damithc]

My preference is with the first since it's minimal new syntax but not opposed to the other syntax as well!

My concern is 'as a list' is not a standard syntax that everybody knows. So, we'll need to provide more details.

Another question: is there a specific reason why we're opting to clone the repo instead of recreating it? Seems like we don't really need to clone it in this case?

In this case I need commits to have fine-grained changes which will need a quite a bit of Python code. It is easier to create the commits myself. But I'm not opposed to the HP recreating the commits I've provided in gm-duty-roster repo, instead of cloning it. But cloning is easier I think.

If we're planning to make it clonable, the configuration would look more like:

Updated as suggested.

[woojiahao]

My concern is 'as a list' is not a standard syntax that everybody knows. So, we'll need to provide more details.

We can include that as a quick note for students. But not a big deal if we don't use it and manually parse the answers either.

It is easier to create the commits myself.

I think the latest changes I've made to support utility functions should simplify this a bunch. But I don't mind cloning if we're reusing the same commits since that reduces variability.

Otherwise, LGTM!