关于javascript:COWB60352-Distributed-Web-Applications

Distributed Web Applications
Assessment Element 2: RESTful API
Learning Outcomes

1. Demonstrate a systematic understanding of the patterns and practices
   that go into making a suitable layered architecture for a web application.
2. Design, implement, test and critically appraise a web application.
3. Extensively develop and apply web application functionality through web
   api (application program interfaces) usage.
4. Demonstrate a critical understanding of consuming web api services on
   different devices.
   Important
   All assignment work is to be completed individually.
   University regulations on academic conduct1
   and exceptional circumstances2 apply. Please
   ensure that you are familiar with these regulations.
   Schedule
   Element Out In Method %
   2
   18/01/2021
   0.00
   Demonstration w/b
   10/05/2021
   Zipped copy submitted to
   Blackboard (immediately following
   the demonstration of your code)
   40%
5. https://www.staffs.ac.uk/stud…
6. https://www.staffs.ac.uk/stud…
   School of Computing and Digital Technologies
   2
   Submission and Assessment
   Submission is to Blackboard. A zipped copy of your code (not a rar file) should be
   submitted immediately following your demonstration.
   Submission will not be accepted by alternative means (such as email) so you should ensure
   that your submission is made well before the deadline to avoid last minute problems.
   There will be a scheduled demonstration slot for you to show your work. Failure to
   demonstrate at the allocated time of your demonstration will result in zero marks for
   this element of the assessment regardless of whether work has been submitted by the
   deadline.
   The marking criteria is provided at the end of this document. You should ensure that you
   are fully aware of these criteria.
   Scenario
   You have been approached once more by College Road Swimming Club to create an API for
   their new records management application so that it can be integrated with 3rd party
   systems (other swimming clubs and the Amateur Swimming Association (ASA)).
   The following is a reminder of their requirements for the records management application.
   Outline
   The new system needs to have the following core functionality:
   • Authentication / authorisation of 4 different categories of user roles (guests,
   swimmers, parents and club officials)
   • The registration, storage and management of members details
   • Entry of swimming event results
   • Access to swimming event results
   Swimmers
   Swimmers are identified as children who swim for the club. A child can only swim for the
   club with the permission of their parent.
   Parents
   Parents, including guardians, are an important part of the club and they are encouraged to
   be as active as possible in supporting their children.
   A parent can manage their children’s profiles.
   Club Officials
   Club officials work for College Road Swimming Club.‘Club official’is a general term for a
   number of different roles.
   For the purposes of the web application, the club official should be able to create a Meet
   on the system, create an Event on the system, create and edit Parents and Swimmers on
   School of Computing and Digital Technologies
   3
   the system, add registered Swimmers to an Event, and add Event results when the Event
   has completed.
   Meets
   Swimming meets take place regularly. They have a Venue where they take place, and a
   date upon which they take place.
   A swimming Meet will include a number of Events.
   Events
   An event is a race.
   Each event has an age range (Under 14 (junior), and Under 16 (senior)), a gender, a
   distance, and a swimming stroke.
   Authorisation levels
   Guests
   This is the base level of access available to all user roles whether or not they are logged in.
   It is expected that the web application will be of general interest to the public. Access
   should be available to:
   • search swimming event results based on an age group, swimming stroke and / or a
   particular swimmer’s name
   • filter swimming meets by venue, or date range
   Swimmers
   When a swimmer has logged in they will be able to see everything that a Guest can see but
   their experience will be personalised. This means that they should find it:
   • easy to view their own performance
   • easy to view the meets and the events that they are registered on
   Parents
   When a parent has logged in they will be able to:
   • view and edit‘family’group profile data (address, contact phone number, and
   email)
   Club Officials
   When a club official has logged in they will be able to:
   • view, edit and archive the personal details of any member – if archived, the
   member’s data should be retained but they will not have a login and should be
   noted as no longer active
   • create and edit family groupings – one parent with one or more dependants
   • create and edit parents and swimmers
   • create and edit a swimming meet and the events that take place during the meet
   (this includes adding swimmers to the event)
   School of Computing and Digital Technologies
   4
   Data
   The College Road Swimming Club has made example data available (see the“Example Data
   Set (Excel Spreadsheet)”on the Assessment tab on Blackboard). You can use this as a
   starting point.
   You should be aware of the following information which is going to be required:
   • Member – Name, Gender, Address, Contact Telephone Number, Email, Date of
   Birth
   • Event –Age Range, Gender, Distance, Stroke, Round, Lanes (with swimmers name),
   Times (or reason for not finishing)
   • Meet – Name, Venue, Date, Pool Length
   Assessment
   Requirements
   It may be necessary for you to make assumptions during your design or implementation.
   Please make sure that you check with your tutor first if you do so.
   Extra Credit
   Extra credit will be given if you are able to show:
   • knowledge and understanding in your use of your chosen development
   framework
   • examples of good practice in software development, including a clear separation
   of concerns using a layered approach
   • a clear understanding of how you are using HTTP to deliver your service
   • how your API design is fit for the purpose required of it
   • an understanding of how secure your API is.
   The Demonstration
   You are required to demonstrate your implemented application over the course of 20
   minutes. You will be asked to show:
   • testing of your API using Postman to demonstrate its functionality.
   and any or all of the following:
   • your implemented application showing how you have addressed the criteria given
   above (specified in the section“Marking Criteria”below)
   • an explanation of any code that you produce
   • unit testing for your application.
   School of Computing and Digital Technologies
   5
   Marking Criteria
   Base Mark (30% of the mark for Task 2)
   Criteria Mark
   Club official creates a parent 2
   Club official creates a swimmer 2
   Club official creates a family group 3
   Club official edits a members name 2
   Club official archives a member 3
   Create meet 2
   Create event 2
   Add swimmers to event 2
   Input race time data to event 2
   Parent can view family profile 1
   Parent can edit contact number 2
   Personalised view for swimmers (name and races involved in) 2
   Swimming meet’s listed (all swimming meets) 1
   Search swimmers by age (list of eligible swimmers) 1
   Search swimmers by swim stroke 1
   Search swimmers by name 1
   List events for a swimming meet 1
   Total 30
   Unit Testing (5% of the mark for Task 1)
   The unit testing mark is reliant on the attempt that you’ve made on the base mark criteria
   above.
   Criteria Assessor Guidance
   Mark %
   (fixed) Total
   Unit testing No Base Mark criteria met. 0
   5
   Less than 16 in Base Mark criteria
   OR
   Testing is limited showing little evidence of progression beyond the
   example tests provided by the framework. 20
   Mark of 16-24 in Base Mark
   OR
   Testing is evident but is limited to the normal value test cases with little
   evidence of testing beyond that. 40
   Above 24 in Base Mark
   AND
   Testing shows a systematic approach with a good attempt to isolate unit
   tests and testing was not limited to normal value test cases. 60
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND
   Testing shows a systematic approach, tests work in isolation, and, while
   some functionality might not be fully tested, the process of unit testing
   was fully understood. 80
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND
   Testing shows a systematic approach, tests work in isolation, and no
   further tests suggested. 100
   Total 5
   School of Computing and Digital Technologies
   6
   Extra Credit (65% of the mark for Task 2)
   The extra credit mark is reliant on the attempt that you’ve made on the base mark criteria
   above.
   Criteria Assessor Guidance
   Mark %
   (fixed) Total
   Use of the
   framework
   No Base Mark criteria met. 0
   10
   Less than 12 in Base Mark criteria
   OR
   Limited use of the framework with little understanding evident. 20
   Mark of 12-18 in Base Mark
   OR
   Framework utilised to create working application but leaving a lot of
   scope for improvements to be made. 40
   Above 18 in Base Mark
   AND
   Good understanding of the framework shown with good use made of
   the functionality available but leaving some room for improvement. 60
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND
   Very good understanding of the framework shown, making great use of
   its functionality with limited scope for improvement and little need for
   prompting or clarification of the explanation given. 80
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND
   Excellent understanding and familiarity with the framework and making
   full use of its functionality for the task in hand, with clear explanation
   given. 100
   Separation of
   concerns
   No Base Mark criteria met. 0
   10
   Less than 12 in Base Mark criteria
   OR
   Only evidence of a limited understanding of separation of concerns as a
   concept. 20
   Mark of 12-18 in Base Mark
   OR
   Evidence of a conceptual understanding of separation of concerns,
   But limited practical evidence in the code produced with much room for
   improvement. 40
   Above 18 in Base Mark
   AND
   Good understanding of separation of concerns demonstrated although
   prompting was required, and
   Separation of concerns evident in the code but some suggestions were
   made for improvement. 60
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND
   Excellent understanding shown of separation of concerns with little
   prompting required, and
   Clear evidence of layers in the code and good separation with only
   limited scope for improvement. 80
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND
   Excellent understanding shown of separation of concerns, and
   Clear evidence of layers in the code with evidence of separation and no
   suggestions for improvement. 100
   Use of HTTP No Base Mark criteria met. 0
   15
   Less than 12 in Base Mark criteria
   OR
   Limited use of HTTP Verbs and Headers and/or misunderstanding of
   their purpose. 20
   Mark of 12-18 in Base Mark 40
   School of Computing and Digital Technologies
   7
   OR
   Good use of HTTP Verbs and Headers showing an understanding of their
   use.
   Above 18 in Base Mark
   AND
   Good use of HTTP Verbs and Headers with a good understanding
   demonstrated of their purpose in the wider context of web
   development. 60
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND
   Great use of HTTP Verbs and Headers with limited room for
   improvement and based on a good understanding of the RESTful
   architectural style. 80
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND
   Excellent use of HTTP Verbs and Headers that adheres to the principles
   of the RESTful architectural style and shows a clear understanding of
   them. 100
   Design of the API No Base Mark criteria met. 0
   15
   Less than 12 in Base Mark criteria
   OR
   Limited evidence of understanding of API design shown. 20
   Mark of 12-18 in Base Mark
   OR
   API worked well with some consideration of the design evident but with
   much scope for improvement. 40
   Above 18 in Base Mark
   AND
   API resources are well-named and the data exchange works effectively,
   A good understanding of API design is demonstrated but required some
   prompting. 60
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND
   API resources are well-named and the data exchange shows a good
   understanding of API design with limited scope for improvement. 80
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND
   API resources are well-named and the well-planned data exchange
   shows an excellent understanding of API design with no suggestions for
   further improvement. 100
   Security of the
   API
   No Base Mark criteria met. 0
   15
   Less than 12 in Base Mark criteria
   OR
   The API security measures implement were limited with limited
   understanding shown of security threats and their countermeasures. 20
   Mark of 12-18 in Base Mark
   OR
   API security measures are evident but the explanation of security
   threats and countermeasures was halting and required prompting. 40
   Above 18 in Base Mark
   AND
   API security measures are evident with a good explanation of the
   threats and countermeasures but with some prompting. 60
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND
   API security measures applied with a good understanding shown of the
   security threats and their countermeasures, little or no prompting
   required and limited scope for improvement. 80
   Base Mark criteria fully met
   AND 100
   School of Computing and Digital Technologies
   8
   API is secured showing an excellent understanding demonstrated of the
   security threats and their countermeasures, clearly explained with no
   prompting required.
   Total 65

请加 QQ：99515681 或邮箱：99515681@qq.com WX：codehelp