Missing use cases for job features

[Btaykb]

While the team has done a great job of documenting use cases for the update and deletion of employees, perhaps they should have included some use cases on the assignment/marking/finalizing of payment for employees as well. The justification is that there are possibly more extensions such features could have over the update/deletion of employees, and could demand more attention from users who are reading the DG.

eg:

• What happens when a job has no assigned employees and is about to be marked?

• What happens when a yet to be marked job is about to finalize its payment?

[nus-se-bot]

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

Missing use case in DG

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.

---

Missing mark/pay use cases in the DG.

As defined in CS2103T website: "Important use cases missing (a use case is important if it involves a user interaction that is worthy of documenting e.g., it has multiple extensions -- this is not the same as the feature being important)"

mark/pay use cases are important since pay can only work IF it is marked as done and pending payment - hence involves user interaction with multiple extensions

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2122S2/pe-interim#2139] [original labels: severity.Medium type.DocumentationBug]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

Missing User Stories

Severity of bugs related to missing requirements (e.g., missing user stories)? Depends on the potential damage the omission can cause. Keep in mind that not documenting a requirement increases the risk of it not getting implemented in a timely manner (i.e., future developers will not know that feature needs to be implemented).

Since the feature is already implemented, there is no risk of it not being implemented again by a future contributor.

Severity

severity.Low : A flaw that is unlikely to affect normal operations of the guide. Appears only in very rare situations and causes a minor inconvenience only.
severity.Medium : A flaw that causes occasional inconvenience to some readers but they can continue to use the guide.

Downgraded to Low because it doesn't affect the normal operations of the guide (navigation, understanding). Contributors will only meet this problem in the rare occasion that they actually read the use cases 😉

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---