nus-se-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
Each multiplicity label corresponds to the arrow which it is closest to. As such, there is no ambiguity present.
Even though the multiplicity for all 3 arrows are the same now, it could cause confusion in the future if even one of the multiplicities are modified.
We do not think that it is fair to be penalised for an event that has not occurred. In the event that a future modification of the diagram results in ambiguity, then the diagram will naturally be reworked to not be ambiguous.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Even though the multiplicities are the same now, it should be marked as unclear notation for a UML diagram which is within the scope for issue finding. It could be difficult for some readers to intuitively determine or assume which multiplicity belongs to which arrow since they are packed so closely together. As the purpose of the DG is to clearly convey the logical design of the application to the reader, unclear notations like these would hinder this purpose and should be considered a bug.
Moreover, I feel like this is an issue that could and should have been avoided before the current version was completed, instead of fixing it later when more problems arise.
The multiplicity for the arrows in the figure on page 43 are messy and difficult to differentiate. Even though the multiplicity for all 3 arrows are the same now, it could cause confusion in the future if even one of the multiplicities are modified.