Meeting Minutes (Meeting with TA)
Date: 2026-03-18
Time: 09:55 - 10:25
Location/Platform: In-person(KHRA L1-350)
Facilitator: Aditya
Attendance
| Name | Present (✅/❌) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Aditya | ✅ | |
| Pragya | ✅ | |
| Prajin | ✅ | |
| Smriti | ✅ | |
| Mustafa | ✅ | |
| Ashwin | ❌ | |
| Salaar | ❌ |
Discussion & Agenda
Sprint 3 Feedback
- addressing TA feedback: 🟡
- excellent to good: UML object relations is still difficult to follow
- deducted 3 marks
- user interface: ✅
- sequence diagram: ✅
- system architecture: ✅
- ui ux heuirsitics: ✅
- codebase: ✅
- accessibility: 🟡
- output from ally
- screen reader
- compatibitlity
- contract checker
- get output for other things as well
- no marks deducted, but this other stuff will be required alongside contrast checking
- github practices: ✅
- codeql: ✅
- UML: ❌
- work on relations
- work on organization of entities
- add labels to lines
- attendance: ✅
- meeting minutes: ✅
- mkdocs: ✅
- team member contribution: ✅
- demo: ✅
- Self-hosted Runners:
- storymap: ✅
-
testing: 🟡
- US 7.04 is not covered
- everything is there in source code tests
- one of its AC is not there in rtm
-
total marks: 97/100
Questions
Clarification on "All "Must" and some Nice-to-have functionalities have been developed"
Could Have
- US-02.06 - Search Clients
- US-02.08 - Filter Clients
- US-02.09 - Search Cases
- US-02.10 - Filter Cases
- US-04.05 - Restore Deleted Recording
- US-06.02 - Regenerate Summary
Would Like But Won't Get
- US-10.01 - Activity Logs
- US-10.02 - Audit Export
- US-03.02 - View Consent History
- US-04.06 - Recording Quality Check
- US-05.05 - Annotate Transcript
- Question: we have 5/5 could haves, and 3/5 would likes but wont get done by sprint4
- Answer: good progress on that
Expectations for sprint 5, Questions/clarifications
Documents Needed, Tips
- check the sprint5 rubric for detailed docs required
A User manual - is video acceptable instead of long textual documentation with pictures?
- should be markdown
- should be a pdf
- use mkdocs to pdf
Testing Point 3
At least one static code analysis testing tool (example: SonarQube) has been tried and its reports have been analyzed with an explanation of what the tool does and what has been analyzed in your code
- Question: current accessibility tests done in sprint3 good?, any tips to do better, sonarqube is paid
- Answer: sonarqube is for code vulnerabilities and all
- alternative is fine too
- but do automated checks, tests
Testing Point 5
CI/CD covers some of the functionalities
- Question: clarification on this? as in tests? or workflows?
- Answer: language is a bit vague, but its good what we have right now for workflows, CI/CD
Final Presentation
- 5% is for cmput 401 portal
- whole team should participate
- ppt only, no google slides
ScreenCast
- 2 to 8 min
- 5 min is expected
Decisions Made/Next Steps
- Sprint3 Feedback:
- UML
- accessibility
- update RTM for 07.04:
- AC1: A Submit action is available on the review page
- check and test if it shows up in rtm or not