代做IDEPG001、代写C++/Python程序

日期：2024-05-07 08:36

Programming

NCUK INTERNATIONAL YEAR ONE ENGINEERING

IDEPG001 Programming

Coursework

The marks for each element are clearly indicated in the attached marking

scheme.

This assignment constitutes 70% of the total marks for this subject.

Programming

Programming V1 2324 ? NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 2 of 8

The brief

As part of a climate change project, a nature reserve near the city of Durham, North East

England requires a program to record and analyse rainfall data. The data are collected

from rain gauges and entered manually into a test file. The program will load and analyse

the data.

Your program should perform the following functions:

1. Load data from a text file. The format, and sample data are shown below.

2. Display formatted data onto the screen, for example:

3. Perform data analysis in the following way, displaying results on the screen in a

suitably formatted way.

a. For a specific year which is entered by the user: The rainfall for each month,

total annual rainfall, mean monthly rainfall, the month with least rainfall (&

its value), the month with the most rainfall (& its value).

i. NB To demonstrate you can use structures, the statistics (should be

calculated and stored in a suitable data structure (C struct).

b. For a specific period between 2 years (which are entered by the user): The

mean annual rainfall, year with least rainfall (& its value), the year with

most rainfall (& its value).

c. For a specific period between 2 years (which are entered by the user): a

sorted list of years and annual rainfall.

d. For a specific period between 2 years (which are entered by the user): the

driest month and wettest month in the period (with year, month & values).

e. For a given year, the variance from the long term mean of annual rainfall.

4. The options should be offered as a menu on the screen, Option 3 should provide a

sub-menu for the analysis options. There should be options to exit the sub-menu

and program. A simple text menu, such as the following is appropriate: Programming

Programming V1 2324 ? NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 3 of 8

5. Validation of inputs should be included as follows:

a. Menu choices should be limited to integers in the range of options

b. Years that are entered should be limited to integers in the range of the fullyear

data.

c. Where two years are entered (for a range), the second year must be greater

than the first.

Guidance

1. Your program should be well structured and commented, with meaningful variable

names. Constants and user-defined functions should be used in appropriate places

for clarity and to reduce duplication.

2. The program should be developed in an incremental way, we recommend that you

start by creating the menus, and validation of the menu choices before moving

onto the more complex elements.

3. Functions should be used to break the program up into meaningful (and reusable)

modules.

4. Look carefully at the marking scheme and grading rubric to ensure you meet the

requirements of the assignment in full. Ask your tutor if there are any aspects that

you do not understand.

5. Note that the results of the single-year analysis must be stored in a data structure

(struct).

6. At the end, it is recommended that you put your program through a pretty printer

to ensure it is consistently formatted.

Data

The data to be used by the program is shown below. This should be copied into a text file

for the program to read. The name of the text file can be hard coded into the program in

this assignment.

Programming V1 2324 ? NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 5 of 8

Marking scheme

Part 1 – Design (30%)

It is expected that you will follow the guidance provided in the lectures to produce

your models. Flowcharts and Pseudo code are alternative ways of process

modelling. To demonstrate that you can use both representations, you should

provide models as follows:

Pseudo code (10%) should be provided for the analysis options 3a (single

year analysis) and 3c (sorted list).

Flow chart (10%) should be provided for the Load data option.

STD (10%) A State Transition Diagram should be provided for the menu

system.

Part 2 – Test plan (20%)

Details of what is to be tested, why, what was the expected outcome, remedial

action if required. All tests should be supported by a screen shot proving the test

was completed.

Part 3 – Application (40%)

All source code provided in a numbered listing with a consist use of comments,

appropriate naming convention and pretty printing.

The code must be suitably demonstrated for the marks to be awarded for this

element. You are expected to be able to answer questions about your program

and handle the tutor modifying the source data.

Part 4 – Review (10%)

A suitably written reflective report communicating your learning through the

assignment, the skills you have developed and areas that need further

improvement.

All submissions are to be in the format detailed by your tutor.

Programming

Programming V1 2324 ? NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 6 of 8

Criteria Assessed

Element

Acquisition and application of requisite knowledge

Novice [0 – 39%] Beginner [40 –49%] Competent [50 –

59%]

Proficient [60 – 69%] Expert [70 – 100%]

Quality of models.

30%

Pseudo code

(10%) Flow

chart (10%)

STD (10%)

Very poorly presented

models inappropriate

or wholly ineffective.

Issues with models which

undermines the

appropriateness and

efficacy. But there is clear

evidence of effort in the

attempt and techniques

are identifiable.

Acceptable models

though there are minor

issues with

appropriateness and

efficacy and/or

notational errors.

No noticeable limitations in

the models. Techniques

have been used to an

appropriate standard

though there may be

some minor omissions or

errors that reduce the

completeness of the

models.

Models are extremely

effective and

professionally presented,

notations have been used

appropriately and the

models wholly map to the

provided solution.

Test documentation

20%

Plan including

reason for

testing,

expected

result, actual

result and

evidence of

remedial

action and test

execution

Very poor testing,

major functionality

untested and/or lack

of any real plan,

evidence of execution

or management.

Basic level of testing

evident though errors and

omissions evident and the

plan has evidence of test

executions though it is not

convincing in its

application or

management.

Satisfactory plan testing

the major executable

functions of the system

and evidence of tests

being executed and

managed but not

compelling.

Good plan with significant

majority of the system

tested as required with

minor omissions. Clear

evidence of execution and

management.

Excellent and

comprehensive plan;

comprehensive evidence

of the tests being

executed and managed.

Application

40%

Execution

(50%)

Application is limited in

features, poorly

engineered lacking

robustness and

extensibility and

rigour.

Application has most of

the required features

evident though lacks

thorough engineering

leading to insufficient

extensibility and/or

robustness with limited

rigour evident.

Acceptable solution

thorough not

convincingly engineered

which may limit

extensibility and/or

robustness, rigour is

deficient.

Solution is well engineered

with evidence of

extensibility. There may be

some minor lack of

robustness and/or

features, or rigour

Wholly professional

approach with solution

well-engineered, robust

and extensible.

Usability

(10%)

No interaction and

very limited output.

System functions but there

is no interaction and only

minimum output.

Acceptable usability

though no user

interaction to load data

and/or very basic

output.

Good, usable application

with basic user interface

provide, loads data as

required and has the

minimum output well

displayed.

Excellent, near

professional quality

interface and interactivity.

User has freedom to load

data and the outputs are

extensive with excellent

presentation.

Quality (20%) Program does not

produce correct

results; the standard

of coding is poor with

no real attempt to

meet a quality

threshold.

Code executes and results

are produced but they are

not validated and/or the

standard of the code is

basic.

Acceptable quality with

clear evidence the

correct result is

produced, the standard

of coding is acceptable

though there are clearly

issues with consistency.

Good quality throughout,

the application executes as

required and results are

valid code quality has

some issues such as pretty

printing or naming

convention not consistent.

Excellent quality, executes

as required, results are

valid and code is

professionally presented. Programming

Programming V1 2324 ? NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 7 of 8

Evidence of

comprehension

(20%)

Lacking, student

appears unable to

explain the code and

features used and had

very little evidence of

skills being acquired

and applied.

Basic evidence of

comprehension, can

explain the major parts of

the program though

lacking evidence of

understanding the more

complex language features

applied. Skill level was

sufficient to complete the

basic tasks but not more

advanced work.

Acceptable though there

are some more

fundamental areas that

the student is not so

confident explaining or

has misunderstood.

They display the skill

level expected to

succeed with the

assignment.

Good knowledge of the

code though not

comprehensive or

compelling they are able

to explain the main

features of the program

and how it executes and

display an above average

skill in their work.

Excellent, student fully

understood all the work

submitted, could explain

the relationship between

the model and the code,

the how the program

executes and showed well

above average and skill in

the production of the

work.

Review

10%

Degree to

which you

have reflected

appropriately

on the work

you have

produced, the

lessons learnt,

strengths and

weaknesses

etc.

Not a reflective

account, details are

presented as is

rather than

considering the

impact upon the

learner.

Evidence of some

reflection rather than

just a narrative of the

process though not

consistent.

Clear evidence of

reflection though

lacking depth and

some objectivity.

Reflection is evident

throughout identifying

areas of development

and skill acquisition

though minor

inconsistencies present.

Deeply reflective

account with clear

evidence of

development and skill

acquisition along with

evaluation of previous

skill and knowledge

deployment. Programming

Programming V1 2324 ? NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 8 of 8