Difference between revisions of "Team:Michigan Software/Proof"

m
m (Added proof picture)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 40: Line 40:
 
<div class="row" style="border-bottom:thin solid;">
 
<div class="row" style="border-bottom:thin solid;">
 
             <div class="col-xs-12" style="font-family: 'Comfortaa', cursive; color:#00274c !important; padding-bottom:30px">
 
             <div class="col-xs-12" style="font-family: 'Comfortaa', cursive; color:#00274c !important; padding-bottom:30px">
−
                 <h1>Michigan Software Team<br>Protocat 3.0 - Proof of Concept</h1>
+
                 <h1>Michigan Software Team<br>ProtoCat 3.0 - Proof of Concept</h1>
 
             </div>
 
             </div>
 
       </div>
 
       </div>
Line 47: Line 47:
  
 
<div>
 
<div>
 +
<h3>Unit Testing</h3>
 +
<p>We used the built-in unittest module to verify the functionality of our software, as is recommended in the Django documentation. In particular, we ran tests on:</p>
  
−
+
<p><ul>
 +
<li>Protocol upload and retrieval</li>
 +
<li>Category upload and retrieval</li>
 +
<li>Reagent upload and retrieval</li>
 +
<li>Viewing standard pages as both anonymous and logged-in users</li>
 +
<li>User creation</li>
 +
</ul></p>
  
−
</div>
+
<img style="width:100%" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/0/0d/T--Michigan_Software--unitTests.png">
  
−
        </div>
 
−
        </div>
 
  
 +
<p>Our software passed these preliminary tests, and so we took to user testing to continue with the verification.</p>
  
−
</body>
 
  
 +
<h3>User Testing</h3>
 +
<p>Once ProtoCat 3.0 went live, we began by testing the interface. Our team swiftly located a numerous number of bugs and issues with ProtoCat. Once we felt certain that the majority of issues were behind us, we began working with other groups so that ProtoCat could be tested by non team member users. These groups included, but not limited to, Michigan iGEM team, Rice University iGEM team, and University of Michigan's biology lab staff. These users not only found more bugs that were previously overlooked, but also provided valuable insight on how an outsider who has never seen the software uses it. In turn we cleaned up our interface and improved labeling in order to bring attention to new features that were being missed.</p>
  
 +
<p>
 +
One of the main goals of ProtoCat is for the software to be used in order to crowd source protocols. During our testing period our team uploaded a <a class="a-over" href="http://protocat.org/protocol/20/">protocol</a>, an improvement was suggested in the comments by a member of the University of Michigan biology lab staff. Thus a <a class="a-over" href="http://protocat.org/protocol/23/">new</a> branch of the protocol was created with the correction, demonstrating the power that collaboration has in creating the best protocol.
 +
</p>
  
−
 
−
<div class="column full_size judges-will-not-evaluate">
 
−
<h3>★  ALERT! </h3>
 
−
<p>This page is used by the judges to evaluate your team for the <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Judging/Medals">gold medal criterion for proof of concept</a>. </p>
 
−
 
−
 
−
<p> Delete this box in order to be evaluated for this medal. See more information at <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Judging/Pages_for_Awards/Instructions"> Instructions for Pages for awards</a>.</p>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
  
 +
        </div>
 +
        </div>
  
  
 +
</body>
  
  
−
<div class="column full_size">
 
−
 
−
 
−
<p>
 
−
iGEM teams are great at making things work! We value teams not only doing an incredible job with theoretical models and experiments, but also in taking the first steps to make their project real.
 
−
</p>
 
−
 
−
 
−
<h4> What should we do for our proof of concept? </h4>
 
−
<p>
 
−
You can assemble a device from BioBricks and show it works. You could build some equipment if you're competing for the hardware award. You can create a working model of your software for the software award. Please note that this not an exhaustive list of activities you can do to fulfill the gold medal criterion. As always, your aim is to impress the judges!
 
−
</p>
 
  
 
</div>
 
</div>

Latest revision as of 17:05, 19 October 2016

Michigan Software Team
ProtoCat 3.0 - Proof of Concept


Unit Testing

We used the built-in unittest module to verify the functionality of our software, as is recommended in the Django documentation. In particular, we ran tests on:

  • Protocol upload and retrieval
  • Category upload and retrieval
  • Reagent upload and retrieval
  • Viewing standard pages as both anonymous and logged-in users
  • User creation

Our software passed these preliminary tests, and so we took to user testing to continue with the verification.

User Testing

Once ProtoCat 3.0 went live, we began by testing the interface. Our team swiftly located a numerous number of bugs and issues with ProtoCat. Once we felt certain that the majority of issues were behind us, we began working with other groups so that ProtoCat could be tested by non team member users. These groups included, but not limited to, Michigan iGEM team, Rice University iGEM team, and University of Michigan's biology lab staff. These users not only found more bugs that were previously overlooked, but also provided valuable insight on how an outsider who has never seen the software uses it. In turn we cleaned up our interface and improved labeling in order to bring attention to new features that were being missed.

One of the main goals of ProtoCat is for the software to be used in order to crowd source protocols. During our testing period our team uploaded a protocol, an improvement was suggested in the comments by a member of the University of Michigan biology lab staff. Thus a new branch of the protocol was created with the correction, demonstrating the power that collaboration has in creating the best protocol.