CF014 - Code Authoring Review Form and Certification v 1.

0 2023-24

Code Authoring Review

Objective: Evaluate the candidate's compliance with rules and guidelines, coding skills,
including code structure, readability, efficiency, and best practices.

Web Application [ ] Mobile Application [ ] Internet of Things (IOT) [ ]

Project Title

Project
Owner

Reviewer

Review Date

Legend: OBS - Observed, NOT OBS - NOT Observed, NOT APP - Not Applicable

1. Compliance with Capstone and Research Guidelines OBS NOT OBS NOT APP

6.3.1.4.1. Use of Relational Databases (e.g. Microsoft SQL Server,

Oracle Database, MySQL and IBM DB2)

6.3.2.1. CAPSTONE PROJECT 2 must exhibit foundational knowledge therefore, the use of the
following technologies is not permitted.

6.3.2.1.1. No SQL Databases (e.g. MongoDB, CouchDB,

CouchBase, Cassandra, HBase, Redis, Riak, Neo4J)

6.3.2.1.2. Content Management Systems (e.g. Drupal,

WordPress, Laravel, Magento, CodeIgniter, and others of the
same nature.)

6.3.2.1.3. APIs and libraries used to support the development of

the project are allowed. (e.g. JQuery, Google Maps, and others of
the same nature.)

6.3.2.1.4. Pre-made templates or themes are NOT ALLOWED.

(e.g. Bootstrap Themes and alike.)

If any from 6.3.2.1.1., 6.3.2.1.2., and 6.3.2.1.4. is observed, the project is rejected,
and there is no further review and issuance of clearance to proceed.
CF014 - Code Authoring Review Form and Certification v 1.0 2023-24

2. Code Structure and Readability

2.1. Code is well-organized with appropriate indentation

and formatting.

2.2. Variable and function names are clear and follow

naming conventions.

2.3. The code is easy to understand and follows a

logical flow.

2.4. Comments and docstrings are used to explain

complex logic or algorithms.

2.5. Code is modular and follows the DRY (Don't

Repeat Yourself) principle.

2.6. Magic numbers and hard-coded values are avoided

or explained.

3. Efficiency and Performance

3.1. The code runs efficiently and does not contain

unnecessary loops or operations.

3.2. Data structures and algorithms are chosen

appropriately for the task.

3.3. Bottlenecks or potential performance issues are

identified and addressed.

3.4. The code handles errors and exceptions gracefully

without impacting performance.

4. Input Validation

4.1. User inputs are validated and sanitized to prevent

security vulnerabilities.

4.2. Edge cases and invalid inputs are handled correctly

with appropriate error messages.

4.3. Input validation is robust and considers potential

corner cases.

5. Best Practices

5.1. The code adheres to the chosen programming

language's coding standards and best practices.
CF014 - Code Authoring Review Form and Certification v 1.0 2023-24

5.2. Global variables and side effects are minimized.

5.3. Code follows the Single Responsibility Principle

(SRP), and functions/methods have clear and
specific purposes.

5.4. Proper use of data structures and design patterns is

evident.

5.5. Code is free from anti-patterns and code smells

(e.g., spaghetti code, tight coupling).

6. Testing and Documentation

6.1. Unit testing was conducted in the code to ensure

functionality and robustness, and the test cases
were documented accordingly.

6.2. Comprehensive documentation or code comments

explain the purpose of functions, classes, and
modules.

6.3. Documentation includes information on how to use

the code or API.

7. Security and Error Handling

7.1. Security vulnerabilities (e.g., SQL injection, XSS)

are mitigated through secure coding practices.

7.2. Error handling is well-implemented, providing

clear error messages and logging when necessary.

7.3. Sensitive data is handled securely (e.g., encryption,

proper access controls).

8. Clarity of Output

8.1. Output messages are clear, informative, and

user-friendly.

8.2. Logging and debugging information are used

effectively for troubleshooting.

Overall Feedback
CF014 - Code Authoring Review Form and Certification v 1.0 2023-24

Certificate of Review and Endorsement

I hereby certify that I have conducted a thorough code review of the codebase identified.
The review was performed in accordance with established coding standards and best practices.

Based on this review, the following status is assigned to the code:

[ ] Approved: The code has been reviewed and meets the required standards. The
authors have satisfactorily explained the code-authoring questions. It is ready for BETA testing.

[ ] Requires Simple Revisions: The code has been reviewed, the authors have explained
the code-authoring questions, and/or specific revisions are minimal but ready for BETA testing.

[ ] Requires Major Revisions: The code has been reviewed, the authors have explained
the code-authoring questions, and/or specific revisions are required before BETA testing.
Detailed feedback has been provided to the developer.

[ ] Full Rejection: The code has been reviewed, significant violations have been
observed, and/or the authors failed to or cannot explain code-authoring questions.

Comments and Feedback:

_____________________________
Reviewer's Name and Signature:

_____________________________
Review Date:

Noted by:

______________________________
Capstone and Research Class Adviser