Wrong UML notations and grammar error in DG

[Bonzzz3]

Description Wrong UML notations and grammar error in DG. The UML notations used should as what was taught in this course. The association labels should have a single arrowhead and not 2 double arrowheads. Also, the association labels should be uses instead of use.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Go to page 3 of DG
2. Go to page 5 of DG

Screenshots

The below image is the correct notation and grammar used found in course textbook:

Suggested Improvement Revise the UML diagrams with correct notations.

[soc-pe-bot]

Team's Response

Thank you for reporting! We just realize that single arrow is supported in PlantUML. However, this diagram is inherited from AB3, and we did not make too many changes to Logic class. we should exercise greater caution and thoroughly review the diagrams. However, the use of <<>> does not affect users understanding of the class diagram.

The grammatical errors are minor and it also does not affect users understanding.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Thank you for your response. However due to the below diagram provided in the PE section, I believe that the developer team should take responsibility for this bug. Additionally, there was a week where we are supposed to update UML diagrams so I believed the incorrect notation was overlooked.

---

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Low`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** I don't think the bug reported was due to typo or cosmetic problem and I believe it affects readers' understanding to some extent. Because the notation `<<>>` is specifically used to indicate interface so it could cause misunderstanding. For example, "Maybe the developer team used `<>` to indicate a short form for an interface named `Use`". Also, because the wrong grammar used for `use`, readers might think that `use` is a noun for interface instead of a verb for association labels. Hence, the grammar mistake which is severity.VeryLow also contributes to readers misunderstanding and impacts the severity of the bug. In the second image provided below, it is suggested that UML notation errors should be labeled with severity.Low or higher. Therefore, I strongly believe that the severity should be Low instead of VeryLow. Severity definitions:  The severity suggested found in PE section:  UML for Interface: 

---