This site is from a past semester! The current version will be here when the new semester starts.

Week 7 [Fri, Feb 19th] - Project

tP:

Ensure you know tP expectations
Start proper milestone management
Add the first functionality increment

tP: mid-v1.2

1 Ensure you know tP expectations

If you haven't done so already, make sure you know individual and team expectations of the tP

Functionality Expectations

The expected level of functionality to be added by a 5-person team is roughly the equivalent effort taken to create AB3 functionality. Furthermore, we expect a team to reach that level if each member puts in an effort equivalent to the effort they put into the iP. So, if the question is "If our team do x, y, and z, is that enough?", the answer is "Yes, if it requires each member to put in about an iP worth of effort". Some examples likely to meet that criterion:

Example 1: A fictional contact management app optimized for a specific target user group:
- Existing AB3 features are optimized to the new target user group.
- Person objects are enhanced to contain more details.
- There are a 4-5 new functionality that are specific to the target user group.
Example 2: a FooBar app that keeps track of two different types of entities Foo entities and Bar entities.
- Foo and Bar entities are tightly-connected e.g., a Foo entity can contain Bar entities. Each type is similar to AB3 Person objects in terms of complexity.
- In addition to Creat Read Update DeleteCRUD for Foo and Bar entities, there are a 4-5 FooBar-specific functionality, some of which involves both Foo and Bar entities e.g., link a Foo entity to a Bar entity.

You will get full marks for implementation effort if you meet the expectation stated above. There are no extra marks for exceeding that bar. You are better off spending that effort in improving other aspects of the project. Try to avoid adding more features than necessary, unless you are doing it out of interest. As mentioned elsewhere, a functionality just the right size and of high quality will earn more marks than a functionality bigger (or more difficult, or more interesting/novel) but of lower quality.

If you wish to add the following features to your app, we recommend (but not require) you to follow similar features in AB4 in order to reduce the effort required.

Individual Expectations

Individual Expectations on Implementation

Expectation Contribute to the functional code of the product.
- User-visible features are preferred, but it is not a strict requirement.:
- The enhancement(s) should fit with the rest of the software (and the target user profile) and should have the consent of the team members. You will lose marks if you go 'rogue' and add things that don't fit with the product.

Some examples:

Add a new feature e.g. add the ability to view statistics
Enhance an existing features in a major way e.g. make the command syntax more user friendly and closer to natural language
A redesign of the GUI e.g. make it work like a chat application (note: chat is a form of CLI)
A redesign of the code e.g. Improve the design to improve the code quality.

Tip: Contribute to all aspects of the project e.g. write backend code, frontend code, test code, user documentation, and developer documentation. Reason: If you limit yourself to certain aspects only, you could lose marks allocated for the aspects you did not do. In addition, the final exam assumes that you are familiar with all aspects of the project.
Tip: Do all the work related to your enhancement yourself. Reason: If there is no clear division of who did which enhancement, it will be difficult to divide project credit (or assign responsibility for bugs detected by testers) later.
In other words, we recommend that the work to be divided primarily based on features rather than components. The latter has the risk of a team member becoming a single point of failure and you becoming too reliant on other team members e.g., what if the person assigned to an important component doesn't deliver on time?.

Tip: Divide the components of the product among team members. Notwithstanding the above, you are still recommended to divide the components of the product among team members so that each team member is in charge of one or more components. While others will be modifying those components to fit their features, your role as the in charge of a component is to guide others modifying that component (reason: you are supposed to be the most knowledgeable about that component) and protect that component from degrading e.g., you can review others' changes to your component and suggest possible changes.

Individual Expectations on Documentation

Objective: showcase your ability to write both user-facing documentation and developer-facing documentation.
Expectation Update the User Guide (UG) and the Developer Guide (DG) parts that are related to the enhancements you added. The minimum requirement is given below. (Reason: Evaluators will not be able to give you marks unless there is sufficient evidence of your documentation skills.)
- UG: 1 or more pages
- DG: 3 or more pages
Tip: If the UG/DG updates for your enhancements are not enough to reach the above requirements, you can make up the shortfall by documenting 'proposed' features and alternative designs/implementations.
Expectation Use at least 2 types of UML diagrams in your DG updates i.e., diagrams you added yourself or those you modified significantly.

Individual Expectations on Testing

Expectation Write some automated tests so that we can evaluate your ability to write tests.

🤔 How much testings is enough? We expect you to decide. You learned different types of testing and what they try to achieve. Based on that, you should decide how much of each type is required. Similarly, you can decide to what extent you want to automate tests, depending on the benefits and the effort required.
There is no requirement for a minimum coverage level. Note that in a production environment you are often required to have at least 90% of the code covered by tests. In this project, it can be less. The weaker your tests are, the higher the risk of bugs, which will cost marks if not fixed before the final submission.

Individual Expectations on Teamwork

Expectation Do an equal share of the team-tasks.

Team-tasks are the tasks that someone in the team has to do.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of team-tasks:

Setting up the GitHub team org/repo
Necessary general code enhancements e.g.,
1. Work related to renaming the product
2. Work related to changing the product icon
3. Morphing the product into a different product
Setting up tools e.g., GitHub, Gradle
Maintaining the issue tracker
Release management
Updating user/developer docs that are not specific to a feature e.g. documenting the target user profile
Incorporating more useful tools/libraries/frameworks into the product or the project workflow (e.g. automate more aspects of the project workflow using a GitHub plugin)

Expectation Carry an equal share of project roles and responsibilities.

Roles indicate aspects you are in charge of and responsible for. E.g., if you are in charge of documentation, you are the person who should allocate which parts of the documentation is to be done by who, ensure the document is in right format, ensure consistency etc.

This is a non-exhaustive list; you may define additional roles.

Team lead: Responsible for overall project coordination.
Documentation (short for ‘in charge of documentation’): Responsible for the quality of various project documents.
Testing: Ensures the testing of the project is done properly and on time.
Code quality: Looks after code quality, ensures adherence to coding standards, etc.
Deliverables and deadlines: Ensure project deliverables are done on time and in the right format.
Integration: In charge of versioning of the code, maintaining the code repository, integrating various parts of the software to create a whole.
Scheduling and tracking: In charge of defining, assigning, and tracking project tasks.
[Tool ABC] expert: e.g. Intellij expert, Git expert, etc. Helps other team member with matters related to the specific tool.

In charge of[Component XYZ]: e.g. In charge of Model, UI, Storage, etc. Note that being in charge of a component doesn't mean you are the only one who should be modifying that component. Rather, you are the one who's expected to, know that component best, review changes done to that component in v1.3-v1.4, act as the gate keeper of its quality, help others when they face difficulties while modifying that component etc.

Ensure each of the important roles are assigned to one person in the team. It is OK to have a 'backup' for each role, but for each aspect there should be one person who is unequivocally the person responsible for it. Reason: when everyone is responsible for everything, no one is.

Expectation Review each others work. Reason: reviewing skills is a learning outcome, and it is mutually beneficial.

Team Expectations

Expectation Preserve product integrity i.e. ensure,
1. features fit together to form a cohesive product,
2. documentation follows a consistent style and presents a cohesive picture to the reader, and
3. final project demo presents a cohesive picture to the audience.
Expectation Maintain product quality i.e. prevent breaking other parts of the product as it evolves. Note that bugs local to a specific feature will be counted against the author of that feature. However, if a new enhancement breaks the entire product, the whole team will have to share the penalty.
Expectation Manage the project i.e. ensure workflow, code maintenance, integration, releases, etc. are done smoothly.

2 Start proper milestone management

Set up the issue tracker as described in the panel below, if you haven't done so already.

tP Issue Tracker Setup

We recommend you configure the issue tracker of the tP team repo as follows:

Delete existing labels and add the following labels.
Issue type labels are useful from the beginning of the project. The other labels are needed only when you start implementing the features.

Issue type labels:

type.Epic : A big feature which can be broken down into smaller stories e.g. search
type.Story : A user story
type.Enhancement: An enhancement to an existing story
type.Task (or type.Chore) : Something that needs to be done, but not a story, bug, or an epic. e.g. Move testing code into a new folder)
type.Bug : A bug

Priority labels:

priority.High : Must do
priority.Medium : Nice to have
priority.Low : Unlikely to do

Bug Severity labels:

severity.VeryLow : A flaw that is purely cosmetic and does not affect usage e.g., a typo/spacing/layout/color/font issues in the docs or the UI that doesn't affect usage. Only cosmetic problems should have this label.
severity.Low : A flaw that is unlikely to affect normal operations of the product. Appears only in very rare situations and causes a minor inconvenience only.
severity.Medium : A flaw that causes occasional inconvenience to some users but they can continue to use the product.
severity.High : A flaw that affects most users and causes major problems for users. i.e., makes the product almost unusable for most users.

When applying for documentation bugs, replace user with reader.

Create following milestones : v1.2, v1.3, v1.4
You may configure other project settings as you wish. e.g. more labels, more milestones

Start proper schedule tracking and milestone management as explained in the panel below.

tP Project Schedule Tracking

In general, use the issue tracker (Milestones, Issues, PRs, Tags, Releases, and Labels) for assigning, scheduling, and tracking all noteworthy project tasks, including user stories. Update the issue tracker regularly to reflect the current status of the project. You can also use GitHub's Projects feature to manage the project, but keep it linked to the issue tracker as much as you can.

Using Issues:

Record each of the user stories you plan to deliver as an issue in the issue tracker. e.g.,

You can break the user story into issue subject and description in this way:

title	`As a user I can add a deadline`
Description	`... so that I can keep track of my deadlines`

Alternatively, you can put the entire user story in the description.

title	`Add deadline`
Description	`As a user I can so that I can keep track of my deadlines`

In both cases, apply the type.Story label.

Assign the type.* and priority.* labels to those issues.
Formalize the project plan by assigning relevant issues to the corresponding milestone.
Define project tasks as issues. When you start implementing a user story (or a feature), break it down to smaller tasks if necessary. Define reasonable sized, standalone tasks. Create issues for each of those tasks so that they can be tracked.
- A typical task should be small enough for one person to do in a few hours. eg.,
  - Bad (reasons: not a one-person task, not small enough): Write the Developer Guide
  - Good: Update class diagram in the Developer Guide for v1.4
- There is no need to break things into VERY small tasks. Keep them as big as possible, but they should be no bigger than what you are going to assign a single person to do within a week. eg.,
  - Bad:Implementing parser (reason: too big).
  - Good:Implementing parser support for adding of floating tasks
- Do not track things taken for granted. e.g., push code to repo should not be a task to track. In the example given under the previous point, it is taken for granted that the owner will also (a) test the code and (b) push to the repo when it is ready. Those two need not be tracked as separate tasks.
- Write a descriptive title for the issue. e.g. Add support for the 'undo' command to the parser
  - Omit redundant details. In some cases, the issue title is enough to describe the task. In that case, no need to repeat it in the issue description. There is no need for well-crafted and detailed descriptions for tasks. A minimal description is enough. Similarly, labels such as priority can be omitted if you think they don't help you.
Assign tasks (i.e., issues) to the corresponding team members using the assignees field. Normally, there should be some ongoing tasks and some pending tasks against each team member at any point.

Using Milestones:

Given below are the conditions to satisfy for a milestone to be considered properly managed:

Planning a Milestone (to do within the first week of the iteration):

Issues assigned to the milestone, team members assigned to issues: Used GitHub milestones to indicate which issues are to be handled for which milestone by assigning issues to suitable milestones. Ensured issues are assigned to team members. Note that you can change the milestone plan along the way as necessary.
Deadline set for the milestones (in the GitHub milestone). Your internal milestones can be set earlier than the deadlines we have set, to give you a buffer.

Wrapping up a Milestone:

A working product tagged with the correct tag (e.g. v1.3) and is pushed to the main repo or a product release done on GitHub (example).
CI passing for the version tagged/released.
Milestone updated to match the product i.e. all issues completed and PRs merged for the milestone should be assigned to the milestone. Incomplete issues/PRs should be moved to a future milestone.
Milestone closed.

Try to achieve all milestone requirements, but do not fret if you miss a few. You will get full marks as long as you achieve about 60% of the milestone requirements on average. Yes, that's a pretty low bar, but we have set it low in order to reduce workload and stress. Ideally, you should achieve close to 80-90%.

3 Add the first functionality increment

Add functionality in small steps, aiming to deliver the first working version of your product by the mid-milestone (i.e., in one week), and v1.2 at the end of this iteration (i.e., in two weeks).
If you split the iteration into two smaller iterations of one-week each (recommended), name the first one v1.2 and the second one v1.2b so that the dashboard can track them accurately. The reason for naming the earlier milestone as v1.2 is so that even if you fail to finish the second one, you can still get credit for reaching v1.2 (which is the milestone tracked by grading scripts) -- think of the first iteration as minimal deliverables for v1.2 and the second one as more to do if there is time.
From this point onwards each member is expected to contribute the amount of code does not matter; even small contributions are acceptablesome code to each v1.3, v1.4 milestone, preferably each week; only merged code is considered as contributions The ability to deliver code incrementally is an important learning outcome of this module because incremental delivery, among other things, improves the visibility of your work.(Reason).
If you plan to rename the code packages, you may want to do it around this time. Doing it later can be more difficult (e.g., it can cause more merge conflicts), and can cause problems in our code authorship tracking. Also note that renaming packages is optional.
Note: you are required to follow the forking workflow for at least for the first part of this iteration:

Read our reuse policy (in Admin: Appendix B), in particular, how to give credit when you reuse code from the Internet or classmates:

Policy on reuse

Reuse is encouraged. However, note that reuse has its own costs (such as the learning curve, additional complexity, usage restrictions, and unknown bugs). Furthermore, you will not be given credit for work done by others. Rather, you will be given credit for reusing work done by others.

You are allowed to reuse work from your classmates, subject to following conditions:
- The work has been shared publicly by us or the authors.
- You clearly give credit to the original author(s).
You are allowed to reuse work from external sources, subject to following conditions:
- In case of reusing more than a short code snippet (e.g., reusing an entire library or an entire feature), the work comes from a source of 'good standing' (such as an established open source project). This means you cannot reuse a significant portion of codebase written by a friend or a past student. But you may reuse/adapt small code snippets from any source such as stackoverflow.
- You clearly give credit to the original author. Acknowledge use of third party resources clearly e.g. in the welcome message, splash screen (if any) or under the 'about' menu. If you are open about reuse, you are less likely to get into trouble if you unintentionally reused something copyrighted.
- You do not violate the license under which the work has been released. Please do not use 3rd-party images/audio in your software unless they have been specifically released to be used freely. Just because you found it in the Internet does not mean it is free for reuse.
- Always get permission from us before you reuse third-party libraries. Please post your 'request to use 3rd party library' in our forum. That way, the whole class get to see what libraries are being used by others.

Giving credit for reused work

Given below are how to give credit for things you reuse from elsewhere. These requirements are specific to this module i.e., not applicable outside the module (outside the module, you should follow the rules specified by your employer and the license of the reused work)

If you used a third party library:

iP/tP: Mention in the README file (under the Acknowledgements section)
tP: Mention in the Project Portfolio Page if the library has a significant relevance to the features you implemented

If you reused code snippets found on the Internet e.g. from StackOverflow answers or
referred code in another software or
referred project code by current/past student:

If you read the code to understand the approach and implemented it yourself, mention it as a comment
Example:

//Solution below adapted from https://stackoverflow.com/a/16252290
{Your implmentation of the reused solution here ...}

If you copy-pasted a non-trivial code block (possibly with minor modifications renaming, layout changes, changes to comments, etc.), also mark the code block as reused code (using @@author tags with the -reused suffix)
Format:

//@@author {yourGithubUsername}-reused
//{Info about the source...}

{Reused code (possibly with minor modifications) here ...}

//@@author

Example of reusing a code snippet (with minor modifications):

persons = getList()
//@@author johndoe-reused
//Reused from https://stackoverflow.com/a/34646172 with minor modifications
Collections.sort(persons, new Comparator<CustomData>() {
    @Override
    public int compare(CustomData lhs, CustomData rhs) {
        return lhs.customInt > rhs.customInt ? -1 : 0;
    }
});
//@@author
return persons;

Giving credit to AB3 code: If your project started with the AB3 code and your new code follows a design similar to AB3, that doesn't mean you need to credit AB3 -- this is because a brownfield project is expected to follow existing code where possible, in the interest of consistency. However, don't take credit for existing AB3 code (i.e., ensure such code doesn't appear under your name in the tP code dashboard) unless you have modified that code substantially.

Adding `@@author` tags indicate authorship

Mark your code with a //@@author {yourGithubUsername}. Note the double @.
The //@@author tag should indicates the beginning of the code you wrote. The code up to the next //@@author tag or the end of the file (whichever comes first) will be considered as was written by that author. Here is a sample code file:
```
//@@author johndoe
method 1 ...
method 2 ...
//@@author sarahkhoo
method 3 ...
//@@author johndoe
method 4 ...
```
If you don't know who wrote the code segment below yours, you may put an empty //@@author (i.e. no GitHub username) to indicate the end of the code segment you wrote. The author of code below yours can add the GitHub username to the empty tag later. Here is a sample code with an empty author tag:
```
method 0 ...
//@@author johndoe
method 1 ...
method 2 ...
//@@author
method 3 ...
method 4 ...
```
The author tag syntax varies based on file type e.g. for java, css, fxml. Use the corresponding comment syntax for non-Java files.
Here is an example code from an xml/fxml file.
```

<textbox>
  <label>...</label>
  <input>...</input>
</textbox>
...
```

Do not put the //@@author inside java header comments.
👎

/**
  * Returns true if ...
  * @@author johndoe
  */

👍

//@@author johndoe
/**
  * Returns true if ...
  */

What to and what not to annotate

Annotate both functional and test code There is no need to annotate documentation files.
Annotate only significant size code blocks that can be reviewed on its own e.g., a class, a sequence of methods, a method.
Claiming credit for code blocks smaller than a method is discouraged but allowed. If you do, do it sparingly and only claim meaningful blocks of code such as a block of statements, a loop, or an if-else statement.
- If an enhancement required you to do tiny changes in many places, there is no need to annotate all those tiny changes; you can describe those changes in the Project Portfolio page instead.
- If a code block was touched by more than one person, either let the person who wrote most of it (e.g. more than 80%) take credit for the entire block, or leave it as 'unclaimed' (i.e., no author tags).
- Related to the above point, if you claim a code block as your own, more than 80% of the code in that block should have been written by yourself. For example, no more than 20% of it can be code you reused from somewhere.
- GitHub has a blame feature and a history feature that can help you determine who wrote a piece of code.
Do not try to boost the quantity of your contribution using unethical means such as duplicating the same code in multiple places. In particular, do not copy-paste test cases to create redundant tests. Even repetitive code blocks within test methods should be extracted out as utility methods to reduce code duplication. Individual members are responsible for making sure code attributed to them are correct. If you notice a team member claiming credit for code that he/she did not write or use other questionable tactics, you can email us (after the final submission) to let us know.
If you wrote a significant amount of code that was not used in the final product,
- Create a folder called {project root}/unused
- Move unused files (or copies of files containing unused code) to that folder
- use //@@author {yourGithubUsername}-unused to mark unused code in those files (note the suffix unused) e.g.
```
//@@author johndoe-unused
method 1 ...
method 2 ...
```
Please put a comment in the code to explain why it was not used.
If you reused code from elsewhere, mark such code as //@@author {yourGithubUsername}-reused (note the suffix reused) e.g.
```
//@@author johndoe-reused
method 1 ...
method 2 ...
```
You can use empty @@author tags to mark code as not yours when RepoSense attribute the code to you incorrectly.
- Code generated by the IDE/framework, should not be annotated as your own.
- Code you modified in minor ways e.g. adding a parameter. These should not be claimed as yours but you can mention these additional contributions in the Project Portfolio page if you want to claim credit for them.

At the end of the project each student is required to submit a Project Portfolio Page.

PPP Objectives

For you to use (e.g. in your resume) as a well-documented data point of your SE experience
For evaluators to use as a data point for evaluating your project contributions

PPP Sections to include

Overview: A short overview of your product to provide some context to the reader. The opening 1-2 sentences may be reused by all team members. If your product overview extends beyond 1-2 sentences, the remainder should be written by yourself.
Summary of Contributions --Suggested items to include:
- Code contributed: Give a link to your code on tP Code Dashboard. The link is available in the Project List Page -- linked to the icon under your profile picture.
- Enhancements implemented: A summary of the enhancements you implemented.
- Contributions to the UG: Which sections did you contribute to the UG?
- Contributions to the DG: Which sections did you contribute to the DG? Which UML diagrams did you add/updated?
- Contributions to team-based tasks
- Review/mentoring contributions: Links to PRs reviewed, instances of helping team members in other ways.
- Contributions beyond the project team:
  - Evidence of helping others e.g. responses you posted in our forum, bugs you reported in other team's products,
  - Evidence of technical leadership e.g. sharing useful information in the forum

Keep in mind that evaluators will use the PPP to estimate your project effort. We recommend that you mention things that will earn you a fair score e.g., explain how deep the enhancement is, why it is complete, how hard it was to implement etc.

OPTIONAL Contributions to the Developer Guide (Extracts): Reproduce the parts in the Developer Guide that you wrote. Alternatively, you can show the various diagrams you contributed.
OPTIONAL Contributions to the User Guide (Extracts): Reproduce the parts in the User Guide that you wrote.

PPP Format

File name (i.e., in the repo): docs/team/githbub_username_in_lower_case.md e.g., docs/team/goodcoder123.md
Follow the example in the AddressBook-Level3

To convert the UG/DG/PPP into PDF format, go to the generated page in your project's github.io site and use this technique to save as a pdf file. Using other techniques can result in poor quality resolution (will be considered a bug) and unnecessarily large files.

Ensure hyperlinks in the pdf files work. Your UG/DG/PPP will be evaluated using PDF files during the PE. Broken/non-working hyperlinks in the PDF files will be considered as bugs and will count against your project score. Again, use the conversion technique given above to ensure links in the PDF files work.

Try the PDF conversion early. If you do it at the last minute, you may not have time to fix any problems in the generated PDF files (such problems are more common than you think).

PPP Page Limit

Content	Recommended	Hard Limit
Overview + Summary of contributions	0.5-1	2
[Optional] Contributions to the User Guide	1
[Optional] Contributions to the Developer Guide	3

The page limits given above are after converting to PDF format. The actual amount of content you require is actually less than what these numbers suggest because the HTML → PDF conversion adds a lot of spacing around content.

Follow the forking workflow in your project. Normally, we expect you to follow the forking workflow at least until (and including) v1.2 after which you may tweak the workflow v1.3. However, after following the forking workflow for 2-3 PRs (per person) in v1.2, if you are confident that you can follow the forking workflow well, you may switch to the feature branch workflow workflow i.e., without waiting for the end of v1.2earlier.
Protect the master branch: You can use GitHub's Protected Branches feature to protect your master branch against rogue PRs. We suggest the following:
- Go the the settings of your team repo.
- Click on the Branches option on the navigation menu on the left.
- Click the button. In the Branch protection rule page,
  - Specify the Branch name pattern to be master
  - Tick the option Require status checks to pass before merging to ensure that a branch has to pass CI before it can be merged into the master branch
  - If you think all PRs should be reviewed by someone other than the PR author before they are merged, also tick the Require pull request reviews before merging option.
Create issues to represent project tasks so that they can be tracked using the issue tracker features.
Create a PR when you implement a project task that updates the code. Remember to use a separate branch for each PR.
You can use GitHub's draft PRs feature to indicate that a PR is not yet ready for merging.
Get team members to review PRs. A workflow without PR reviews is a risky workflow.
- Follow the Best practices for reviewing PRs @SE-EDU/guides.
  PRO TIP LGTM is common abbreviation you can use in the review comments to mean Looks Good To Merge.
Go breadth-first iterative: As you are expected to follow breadth-first iterative approach, almost all code additions to the master branch should take the product from a working version to a slightly better working version.
- Bad Let's add all data classes first reason: this is the depth-first approach
- Bad Let's finish the part of the code that saves and loads data first reason: this is the depth-first approach
- Good Let's add code to support simple todo tasks first (i.e., read, delete, save, load)
Do not merge PRs failing Continuous Integration e.g., GitHub ActionsCI. The CI status of a PR is reported at the bottom of the conversation tab of the PR page. Here's an example:
- If there is a failure, you can click on the Details link in corresponding line to find out more about the failure. Once you figure out the cause of the failure, push the a fix to the PR.
Avoid rebasing/squashing when merging PRs. While both are good alternatives to the default behavior of creating a merge commit, rebasing/squashing can affect the timestamp of the commits, which can interfere with the progress tracking that we do for grading purposes i.e., the commits can get detected under a week different from the week they were actually done.
After merging a PR,
- close the corresponding issue.
  PRO TIP You can use GitHub's Fixes #123 trick to get the issue to close automatically when the PR is merged.
- sync your repos with the team rep by pulling the latest master from the team repo and pushing it to your own fork.

Project Management → Revision Control →

Forking flow

In the forking workflow, the 'official' version of the software is kept in a remote repo designated as the 'main repo'. All team members fork the main repo and create pull requests from their fork to the main repo.

To illustrate how the workflow goes, let’s assume Jean wants to fix a bug in the code. Here are the steps:

Jean creates a separate branch in her local repo and fixes the bug in that branch.
Common mistake: Doing the proposed changes in the master branch -- if Jean does that, she will not be able to have more than one PR open at any time because any changes to the master branch will be reflected in all open PRs.
Jean pushes the branch to her fork.
Jean creates a pull request from that branch in her fork to the main repo.
Other members review Jean’s pull request.
If reviewers suggested any changes, Jean updates the PR accordingly.
When reviewers are satisfied with the PR, one of the members (usually the team lead or a designated 'maintainer' of the main repo) merges the PR, which brings Jean’s code to the main repo.
Other members, realizing there is new code in the upstream repo, sync their forks with the new upstream repo (i.e. the main repo). This is done by pulling the new code to their own local repo and pushing the updated code to their own fork.
Possible mistake: Creating another 'reverse' PR from the team repo to the team member's fork to sync the member's fork with the merged code. PRs are meant to go from downstream repos to upstream repos, not in the other direction.

One main benefit of this workflow is that it does not require most contributors to have write permissions to the main repository. Only those who are merging PRs need write permissions. The main drawback of this workflow is the extra overhead of sending everything through forks.

A detailed explanation of the Forking Workflow - From Atlassian

Tools → Git and GitHub →

Forking workflow

You can follow the steps in the simulation of a forking workflow given below to learn how to follow such a workflow.

This activity is best done as a team.

Step 1. One member: set up the team org and the team repo.

Create a GitHub organization for your team. The org name is up to you. We'll refer to this organization as team org from now on.
Add a team called developers to your team org.
Add team members to the developers team.
Fork se-edu/samplerepo-workflow-practice to your team org. We'll refer to this as the team repo.
Add the forked repo to the developers team. Give write access.

Step 2. Each team member: create PRs via own fork.

Fork that repo from your team org to your own GitHub account.
Create a branch named add-{your name}-info (e.g. add-johnTan-info) in the local repo.
Add a file yourName.md into the members directory (e.g., members/jonhTan.md) containing some info about you into that branch.
Push that branch to your fork.
Create a PR from that branch to the master branch of the team repo.

Step 3. For each PR: review, update, and merge.

[A team member (not the PR author)] Review the PR by adding comments (can be just dummy comments).
[PR author] Update the PR by pushing more commits to it, to simulate updating the PR based on review comments.
[Another team member] Approve and merge the PR using the GitHub interface.
[All members] Sync your local repo (and your fork) with upstream repo. In this case, your upstream repo is the repo in your team org.

Step 4. Create conflicting PRs.

[One member]: Update README: In the master branch, remove John Doe and Jane Doe from the README.md, commit, and push to the main repo.
[Each team member] Create a PR to add yourself under the Team Members section in the README.md. Use a new branch for the PR e.g., add-johnTan-name.

Step 5. Merge conflicting PRs one at a time. Before merging a PR, you’ll have to resolve conflicts.

[Optional] A member can inform the PR author (by posting a comment) that there is a conflict in the PR.
[PR author] Resolve the conflict locally:
1. Pull the master branch from the repo in your team org.
2. Merge the pulled master branch to your PR branch.
3. Resolve the merge conflict that crops up during the merge.
4. Push the updated PR branch to your fork.
[Another member or the PR author]: Merge the de-conflicted PR: When GitHub does not indicate a conflict anymore, you can go ahead and merge the PR.