Sharing iP code quality feedback [for @bryans17]

[nus-se-bot]

@bryans17 We did an automated analysis of your code to detect potential areas to improve the code quality. We are sharing the results below, to help you improve the iP code further.

IMPORTANT: Note that the script looked for just a few easy-to-detect problems only, and at-most three example are given i.e., there can be other areas/places to improve.

Aspect: Tab Usage

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Naming boolean variables/methods

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Brace Style

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Package Name Style

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Class Name Style

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Dead Code

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Method Length

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Class size

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Header Comments

Example from src/main/java/duke/parser/Parser.java lines 12-18:

    /**
     * Parse the command given by the user.
     *
     * @param command Command given by user.
     * @return duke.command.Command based on what the user gave.
     * @throws DukeWrongInputFormatException If the format of the input given by the user is invalid.
     */

Suggestion: Ensure method/class header comments follow the format specified in the coding standard, in particular, the phrasing of the overview statement

Aspect: Recent Git Commit Message (Subject Only)

possible problems in commit ee97175:

Updated code to follow coding standards

• Not in imperative mood (?)

Suggestion: Follow the given conventions for Git commit messages for future commits (no need to modify past commit messages).

ℹ️ The bot account @nus-se-bot used to post this issue is un-manned. Do not reply to this post (as those replies will not be read). Instead, contact cs2103@comp.nus.edu.sg if you want to follow up on this post.