DG - Inconsistent Use Case Logic(Extensions) across Use Cases

[ITLimJiaWei]

In UC4, the extension where "a specified candidate does not exist" begins from Step 1 where in UC5 the same "a specified candidate does not exist" begins from 2a as seen in the screenshot below. This is despite both Step 1s from both use cases being similar.

In this case, UC5's extensions are incorrect as they should begin from Step 1 and be marked as Steps 1a and 1b instead of 2a and 2b.

It would be good to correct UC5 so the user is clear on the logic for both UC4 and UC5.

[soc-se-bot]

Team's Response

Purely cosmetic issue that overall does not affect the understanding of the command. The main understanding here is that the application will throw an error message if such a candidate does not exist.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.VeryLow] Originally [severity.Low]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: While I understand your point of view, this is not a purely cosmetic issue. It is an issue where the extension of the use case has been misunderstood(misrepresented) and I do not believe this is can be considered a typo etc. as a similar use case above(UC4) with similar steps has a different logic to for extension where the candidate does not exist. The numbering for the extension is logically incorrect and should be a low severity bug as again, this is not purely cosmetic.

This may cause the user to doubt the validity of the use cases as even these 2 side by side use cases have differing logic where in this case UC5 is incorrect as the extension of the candidate not existing cannot occur after the application changes the status to either hired or rejected. Overall, the extension numbering is incorrect and may cause the user to doubt the use cases.

Thus, I believe this documentationBug is warranted to have a severity of “Low as veryLow is only categorized for “Purely Cosmetic” bugs such as padding, font, colour issues. Low severity fits this bug better as an incorrect Use Case Extension is unlikely to affect normal operations of the product and is a minor inconvenience only.

---