15 0429

DPS MODERN INDIAN SCHOOL

Introduction

The code being reviewed is for our most scoring bot BETA Bot which collects the gold poms in the cave

and stores them in the Starting Box using a simple claw which can grab and lift. The program was

created by Aaranya so Abhiram and Siddhant are performing the code review. The review was

conducted on 04/03/2015

Best Practices Checklist Code contains functions for organization.

Code contains a brief comment on the use of the function.

Code contains comments for every Task performed by the robot.

Code contains comments on each functions arguments.

Code contains comment on each functions return value.

Code contains descriptive variable names.

0, 1, 2 are the only unnamed constants.

Code shows flow of control.

No Commented block of code.

We assigned specific constants for specific functions. This would help us not to use the constants again

and keeps the code neat and clean. This helps to prevent errors. All other minor and unnamed constants

values are noted in the code on the side using comments as we dont use many constants in our

program. And also as our robot relies on sensors, the return value will change, so we cannot predict and

state the return values in comments.

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

YES

General Code Analysis

Reliability

While meeting with the Building team we decided that our complete bots would be based on sensors to

keep all movements autonomous. Since our testing was done on tiles (Not same as the Botball table)

there was a high margin of error. So we decided that our bot would use the reflectance sensor and use

line following programs to reach the cave and use touch sensors for aligning to the wall.

The present code is quite reliable. While testing the bot we noticed that the bots accuracy and

functioning changes with the background. So to increase the reliability we will increase the use of

variables for threshold values so that it can be changed on the day of competition to the background

conditions like lighting.

Maintainability

While most of our code was written by Aaranya and Siddhant, the coding team had accepted to read the

code once every 3 meetings. Since it was read through constantly there was no problem while changing

the code or updating it. We also agreed on using Dropbox to share the codes and also as backup. The

start of the code contains comments on the latest revisions in the code with the name of the person

who changed it. Every hard to understand codes were commented with an explanation for future use.

The only way to improve on maintainability is by using more comments, not unnecessary ones though as

it might be confusing later on. Every statement should be accompanied by a comment briefly stating

what is going on. The coders must make it a habit to document the processes, movements and

statements in the form of comments on the side. All unknown values and numbers should be

documented in comments stating what their role is.

Effectiveness

The code completes all the assigned tasks. What our team lacks is in effectively completing the tasks. For

this to happen, our code needs to be simple and clean but effective and fast. Writing comments is one

way to do so. Also our bot should avoid unnecessary movements which might change the actions of the

robot in the incorrect manner.

Specific Code Analysis

The following excerpt is in support of RELIABILITY. The code is explained

as comments in the code.

The following code is for our bot to reach the cave and then collect the gold poms.

Our basic principle was to make the bot autonomous to its extent. As you can see from the excerpts

above that our robot uses many sensors to complete the tasks. Also for adapting to lighting conditions

on the board, we used variables for the threshold. In this we can get rid of any possible errors or flaws.

We also try to keep the program simple.

--X-X-X--