nus-se-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
Issue is slightly unclear, but our team interpreted it as the line captured in the screenshot is not clear for developers reading the DG.
Our team thinks that it should not affect reader's ability to understand this line of the DG, with respect to what can or cannot be edited for a supplier or warehouse. This is so as a class diagram, indicating the attributes of a supplier or warehouse is shown before this section. This means that the user would know clearly what field a supplier or warehouse will contain and thus could be edited. If the fields of edit command is separated, this might cause this section of the DG to be unnecessarily long for readers or even cause slight confusion.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: The team has interpretted the issue correctly! The suggestion was to suggest seperating warehouse and supplier’s edit fields as there are different parameters for supplier and warehouse and the edit implementation only edit either warehouse or supplier.
Despite the team's justification, I feel the DG may be improved if the formatting is as follows:
[Heading] Edit section [Subheading] Edit warehouse [Subheading] Edit supplier
Reasoning as follows:
The information will greatly help the developer to understand the diagrams better. It helps him/her to derive that you can only edit either warehouse and supplier at one time as currently the first senetence edit a supplier/warehouse information may also include editing both supplier and warehouse at the same time as well if the developer find it unclear.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.Low]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
May be more comprehensive if seperate warehouse and supplier's edit fields.