[zlatanza] Reviewing exercise submission

[zezl7]

Deliverables

• Exercise repository: This is the repository I created for this exercise under my namespace.
• Exercise PR: This is the pull request from the feature branch to the main branch in my repository.

Description

In this exercise, the 1D heat equation was solved using Kotlin generated code from the Responsible AI (RAI) provided by the University of Stuttgart.

  I acknowledge the use of RAI (https://rai.uni-stuttgart.de/) to implement the entirety of this code.

  Prompt: Please generate Kotlin code for solving a heat equation and provide the files. Take parameters from a configuration file and write results to an output file. Generate separate documentation and tests.

Changes

The changes include the Kotlin files and file structure generated by RAI. The file tree looks like this:

sse-reviewing-exercise/
 ├─ src/
 │   ├─ main/
 │   │   ├─ kotlin/
 │   │   │   └─ de/unistuttgart/heat/
 │   │   │       ├─ Main.kt
 │   │   │       ├─ Config.kt
 │   │   │       ├─ HeatSolver.kt
 │   │   │       ├─ IOUtils.kt
 │   │   │       └─ MathUtils.kt
 │   │   └─ resources/
 │   │       └─ config.json
 │   └─ test/
 │       └─ kotlin/
 │           └─ de/unistuttgart/heat/
 │               ├─ HeatSolverTest.kt
 │               └─ ConfigTest.kt
 ├─ docs/
 │   └─ usage.md
 └─ build.gradle.kts

Comparing reviews

Comparing the two reviews, Copilot focused on documentation, consistency, and file naming, whereas I focused on tests, code syntax and verbosity.
From this suggestions I was reminded to keep writing styles consistent and ensure higher code coverage.

Examples from conda-forge project

• PR with extensive review: The reviewer "ocefpaf" seems to focus on
  • pointing out the current state (as-is),
  • giving an example of the current state,
  • suggesting an improvement (to-be),
  • providing additional hints and documentation links for follow-up.