search

IronBiscuit / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Incorrect notation for Sequence Diagram #9

Open IronBiscuit opened 3 years ago

IronBiscuit commented 3 years ago

image.png

The above sequence diagram is obtained from the Developer Guide, Section 3.3 Budget features

Even after the ExchangeCommandParser object is deleted (marked by the X on the dotted line), the dotted line still continues to extend, which is incorrect for sequence diagram notation.

A similar issue can be found in the sequence diagram under section 3.1.6 List feature of the DG:

image.png

nus-se-bot commented 3 years ago

Team's Response

PlantUML limitation.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

Reason for disagreement: Thank you for responding to the issue.

Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with the issue being not in scope.

With reference to another issue i raised with the application, which was regarding the pie chart not functioning as desired, your team has made the stand that that issue was out of scope, as it was a JavaFX limitation. I agreed with that explanation. As we have to work with JavaFX for this project, any issues that appear due to the limitations of JavaFX are thus definitely understandable.

However, this issue is clearly not a similar example to the above. In this case, we are not limited in terms of the software used to create our UML diagrams. There are many free programs available on the internet that can create accurate UML diagrams without having to face the same problem as the one raised in this issue. An example of such a program is DrawIO (do feel free to check it out when drawing UML diagrams in the future). With that said, a response that blames the issue on the limitations of PlantUML does seem very unconvincing when there are plenty of better alternatives available.

While I understand there may be reasons why PlantUML is the preferred software of choice for your team when creating UML diagrams, I believe it is definitely still a responsibility to ensure that , if given the freedom to do so, the software we use is suitable in addressing our needs. Therefore, I believe that the rejection of this issue should be reconsidered.