Instructions in Manual Testing is lacking

[T-Wan-Lin]

Considering that this is for testing, there should be more cases, in accordance with AB3 sample DG.

[nus-se-script]

Team's Response

The instructions in the manual testing is meant to provide a starting point for the testing and testers are encouraged to try their own testing.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

Lacking steps for Instructions for manual testing section in DG

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.

---

The steps provided in the DG for manual testing are insufficient to test all the function in the application.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2113-AY2223S2/pe-interim#490] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

The instructions in the manual testing is meant to provide a starting point for the testing and testers are encouraged to try their own testing.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---

## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.NotInScope`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** A developer guide is **not** a user-facing guide but is meant to complement the UG. From the textbook, the appendix should have the following:  It should minimally have some representative commands and should be similar to that of the AB3 developer guide, which provided both positive and negative test cases for manual testing. 

---

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** Without clear test cases and expected output (even for negative testing), it leaves little to no guidance on what is considered expected or unexpected behaviour. Yes although testers are encouraged to do exploratory testing, it would be hard to do so without some baseline test cases. The tester would just have to assume that everything is intended behaviour and may falsely assume that the program is behaving well. For example, the program should not accept the `add` command with incorrect flags as mentioned in another issue (#2061). The UG also did not touch on negative test cases as well, making the omission of such test cases unjustifiable.

---