DG Bug: Insufficient visuals used to explain `Logic` component

[PraveenElango]

A UML class diagram was used to explain the Logic component of the app.

The steps of the Logic component were explained step-by-step in the DG as follows:

However, it can be seen that if-else statements were used to explain the steps of the Logic component. For this paticular case, the use of a sequence diagram may have been more appropriate in explaining the steps which could have been included in addition to the class diagram. Including all the steps in text documentation format may be confusing to the developer as opposed to a sequence diagram.

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

A sequence diagram might have provided more clarity, however the text documentation provided is, in our opinion, clear and concise. Any resonable competent devevloper would have no issues understanding the logic. In addition, the logic component is illustrated in a few sequence diagrams in the feature-level implementation segment. If the suggestion is taken, it would have caused a repitition in the diagrams throughout the entire DG; given the fact the in each of our features we fully decribe the logic implementation in the sequence diagrams of our features.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: I agree with the developer team that the provided documentation is clear, but it is not concise and this was my reason for suggesting a sequence diagram which would make the explanation less complicated. In support of this, they have also conceded that 'a sequence diagram might have provided more clarity'. There is no need for a repetition of the diagrams since the sequence diagrams for only the Logic component need to be provided.

---

:question: Issue severity

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

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---