From 55d0fb8d078d2d177b1f54d7454e3d133c044ff2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: aaron1gh <161343104+aaron1gh@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:23:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Create testprocessingcode-review.md --- testprocessingcode-review.md | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) create mode 100644 testprocessingcode-review.md diff --git a/testprocessingcode-review.md b/testprocessingcode-review.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0b13322 --- /dev/null +++ b/testprocessingcode-review.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +1. Comments and Documentation +There are no comments in the code. + +It’s hard to understand what’s happening without carefully reading each line. + +Add a short explanation at the top and comments throughout to describe key steps. + +2. Error Handling +The code does not check if the file path is correct or if the file exists. + +If the user enters the wrong file name, the program crashes. + +Suggest adding basic error messages and checks to help the user. + +3. Variable Names +Most variable names are single letters like z, q, a, which are not meaningful. + +This makes the code hard to read or maintain. + +Use full, clear names like filePath, wordCounts, etc. + +4. Code Structure +All code is inside the Main method. + +It would be better to break the work into smaller parts (e.g., file reading, cleaning, counting) using methods. + +5. File Handling Assumptions +The program assumes the file always exists and contains data. + +It doesn’t check for empty files or handle missing ones. + +Recommend checking if the file exists and providing feedback if something goes wrong. + +6. Output Format +The output works, but it could be displayed in a clearer, more professional way. + +For example, avoid terms like "uniquez" — use "Total unique words" instead. + +7. OOP Principles +The program is written in a very basic, procedural way. + +No object-oriented programming (OOP) features like classes or methods are used. + +Consider creating a class to handle the text processing tasks to improve structure and reusability. From dbb249eb5b1ee5d51ed50482e2a860928f3544ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: aaron1gh <161343104+aaron1gh@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:28:02 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Update and rename testprocessingcode-review.md to testprocessing-1 code review --- testprocessing-1 code review | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ testprocessingcode-review.md | 44 ------------------------------------ 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) create mode 100644 testprocessing-1 code review delete mode 100644 testprocessingcode-review.md diff --git a/testprocessing-1 code review b/testprocessing-1 code review new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a9cced7 --- /dev/null +++ b/testprocessing-1 code review @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +1. Comments and Documentation +There are no comments in the code +It’s hard to understand what’s happening without carefully reading each line +Add a short explanation at the top and comments throughout all code to describe key steps + +2. Error Handling +The code does not check if the file path is correct/if file exists +If the user enters the wrong file name, the program crashes +Adding basic error messages and checks could help the user + +3. Variable Names +Most variable names are single letters like z, q, a, which are not meaningful or that relevant +This makes the code hard to read or maintain +Use full, clear names like filePath, wordCounts, etc. + +4. Code Structure +All code is inside the Main method +It would be better to break the work into smaller parts (e.g., file reading, cleaning, counting) using methods + +5. File Handling Assumptions +The program assumes the file always exists and contains data +It doesn’t check for empty files or handle missing ones +Could check if the file exists and providing feedback if something goes wrong. + +6. Output Format +The output works, but it could be displayed in a clearer, more professional way +For example, avoid terms like "uniquez" — use "total unique words" instead + +7. OOP Principles +The program is written in a very basic, procedural way +No object-oriented programming (OOP) features like classes or methods are used +Consider creating a class to handle the text processing tasks to improve structure and reusability diff --git a/testprocessingcode-review.md b/testprocessingcode-review.md deleted file mode 100644 index 0b13322..0000000 --- a/testprocessingcode-review.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,44 +0,0 @@ -1. Comments and Documentation -There are no comments in the code. - -It’s hard to understand what’s happening without carefully reading each line. - -Add a short explanation at the top and comments throughout to describe key steps. - -2. Error Handling -The code does not check if the file path is correct or if the file exists. - -If the user enters the wrong file name, the program crashes. - -Suggest adding basic error messages and checks to help the user. - -3. Variable Names -Most variable names are single letters like z, q, a, which are not meaningful. - -This makes the code hard to read or maintain. - -Use full, clear names like filePath, wordCounts, etc. - -4. Code Structure -All code is inside the Main method. - -It would be better to break the work into smaller parts (e.g., file reading, cleaning, counting) using methods. - -5. File Handling Assumptions -The program assumes the file always exists and contains data. - -It doesn’t check for empty files or handle missing ones. - -Recommend checking if the file exists and providing feedback if something goes wrong. - -6. Output Format -The output works, but it could be displayed in a clearer, more professional way. - -For example, avoid terms like "uniquez" — use "Total unique words" instead. - -7. OOP Principles -The program is written in a very basic, procedural way. - -No object-oriented programming (OOP) features like classes or methods are used. - -Consider creating a class to handle the text processing tasks to improve structure and reusability. From 8e847dd6b37c6b0f8b9bbee22db73be7bb174218 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: aaron1gh <161343104+aaron1gh@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:31:53 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] code review resit --- testprocessing-1 code review => code review resit | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) rename testprocessing-1 code review => code review resit (100%) diff --git a/testprocessing-1 code review b/code review resit similarity index 100% rename from testprocessing-1 code review rename to code review resit