Scribd
Upload
7 views

code_review_summary

The code review identifies both strengths and weaknesses in the implementation, highlighting clear explanations, error handling, and PEP 8 compliance as positive aspects. However, it notes deficiencies in input validation, modularity, and error messaging, resulting in a score of 3 (25-50% incorrect). The input data consists of task items with names, due dates, and priorities.

Uploaded by

chennamsettigopinath71
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views

code_review_summary

The code review identifies both strengths and weaknesses in the implementation, highlighting clear explanations, error handling, and PEP 8 compliance as positive aspects. However, it notes deficiencies in input validation, modularity, and error messaging, resulting in a score of 3 (25-50% incorrect). The input data consists of task items with names, due dates, and priorities.

Uploaded by

chennamsettigopinath71
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Code Review Summary and Input Data

1. Instruction Following

Correct Aspects:

1. High-Level Explanation: Clear overview before showing the code.

2. Code Structure and Organisation: Well-organised into logical sections.

3. Error Handling: Proper handling for common errors.

4. Data Structures and Sorting Logic: Efficient use of list of dictionaries and list.sort().

5. Docstrings and Comments: Detailed and informative.

6. PEP 8 Compliance: Consistent formatting and naming conventions.

7. Executable Code: Runs out-of-the-box with example usage.

Incorrect Aspects:

1. Input Validation and Edge Cases: Missing checks for empty lines, duplicates, and invalid priorities.

2. Modularity and Reusability: Lacks smaller, reusable helper functions.

3. Progressive Disclosure: Presents full solution at once.

4. Enhanced Error Messages: Could include more context.

Score: 3 (25-50% Incorrect)

2. Accuracy

Correct Aspects:

1. Correctness: Parses and sorts tasks correctly.

2. Precision: Outputs relevant task details.

3. Relevance: Matches prompt requirements.

4. Completeness: Covers reading, parsing, sorting, and error handling.

5. Case Coverage: Handles standard errors like missing files.


Incorrect Aspects:

1. Case Coverage: No checks for empty lines, duplicates, or invalid priorities.

2. Completeness: Misses edge cases like extra separators.

3. Relevance: Error messages could be more informative.

Score: 3 (25-50% Incorrect)

3. Input Data

{'name': 'Submit assignment', 'due_date': datetime.date(2025, 2, 27), 'priority': 'High'}

{'name': 'Buy groceries', 'due_date': datetime.date(2025, 2, 28), 'priority': 'Medium'}

{'name': 'Finish project report', 'due_date': datetime.date(2025, 3, 1), 'priority': 'High'}

{'name': 'Pay bills', 'due_date': datetime.date(2025, 3, 2), 'priority': 'Medium'}

{'name': 'Clean the house', 'due_date': datetime.date(2025, 3, 3), 'priority': 'Low'}

You might also like