nus-pe-bot
commented
2 years ago Team's Response
It is actually more specific to write it as d.execute(). At that point in time, there are 2 instances of Command objects. The Dev team believes it improves clarity by expressing it this way.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: The team said that they want to improve clarity by typing it like this, but the representations in the sequence diagram already show this if the team types it as execute() instead of d.execute(). I also do not think that writing it as d.execute() is allowed in a sequence diagram, or at least it is redundant to write it this way. This is because the arrow (to show the operation invoked) is already pointing from the activation bar of the LogicManager instance to one of the activation bars of the deleteCommand instance named d, where d:DeleteCommand has been labelled in the entity in the diagram. As such, the team does not need to write this as d.execute(), since this arrow already signifies that it is calling the execute() command on the deleteCommand instance named d.
It can be seen in the above screenshot that the arrow going from LogicManager to d:DeleteCommand is labelled with
d.execute(), which is wrong. It should beexecute()instead.