nus-pe-bot
commented
2 years ago Team's Response
It is important that commands be intuitive, so we chose to have them spelled out in full. For example, "list rooms", a valid command by itself, is augmented by the additional keywords to filter for either vacant or occupied rooms.
Fast typers are the ones who would have the fewest problems with this.
However, we understand the value of also having abbreviated commands for advanced users. As such, we thank you for your suggestion, and will consider it for future versions beyond the scope of this module.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: This is from the course module textbook.
As you can see, your command features are not optimised enough for fast-typists.
Since this is part of your NFR, it is related to features to be delivered in v1.4.
Furthermore, your UG did not specify that this optimisation is 'coming soon'.
Lastly, as part of a team who did this segment, this change is also does not take too much time and effort to implement. (I only spent 30mins changing my commands).
Thus, this should not be classified under response.NotInScope, and should be a type.FeatureFlaw bug instead.
No sign of catering to users on CLI.
Some commands are even rather troublesome to type out in full.
e.g. list rooms occupied. list rooms vacant.
More effort can be put into making it easier for the users to type.
for example, 'list rooms occupied' command can be abbreviated to 'lro', 'list rooms vacant' can be abbreviated to 'lrv'.