Sprint 3 Retrospective

James

What went well?
- It was pretty uneventful, most of the product was already implemented and we were working on 'stretch' features. That said everything were adding now are useful features, like the icing on the cake. We hope that these features will make our product more distinguishable from other groups.
- James learned how to squash commits before merging.
- Joel learned how to rebase.
Wished we'd gone with typescript. Has issues with a lot of garbage data and had to write a lot of if statements to check the type of that data rather than having it set before hand.

From last time, we did a better job at reworking the flow from front end to back end that made it easier to read. It wasn't a big change to the end user but it made changes easier to see. Kane saw this when he went to implement a feature.
Adding test cases earlier since it defeats the point to add them now. It would have helped identify some issues that could break the product earlier.
We saw some success with this using ESLint, and it would have been good to have a similar thong for the logic of the code
With another sprint he would have definitely added more test cases.

Had some troubles taking the data from the dashboard and populating it into another page to prepare it for printing. We didn't elaborate on what we wanted this function to be, so we're doing it on the fly based on what already exists. It would have been better to take this into consideration when we were designing the back end.
For next time he would have liked to change up the roles within the team to allow the back-end teams and front-end teams to diversify their skill set.

What went well?
- I thought we did well at merging in the various independently developed features into one cohesive product. Each person managed to deliver something that worked well with each others code without any major bugs or issues. This reflects the good structure of our code base.
What didn't go so well?
- The documentation for the back half of the sprint was lacking in general. I feel this was because we were unsure of what was required or what kind of documentation we could create or supply to improve our product.
What would we improve?
- In another sprint I agree with Kane that it would have been nice to be able to experiment and learn some other skills, go outside of our comfort zones. I also feel that it would have been good to spend some more time iterating on UI designs an flow, possibly implementing some more advanced features to make it easier to navigate on different devices.