search

Than-Duc-Huy / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

UG, DG: Mismatch instructions (Tester cannot add Appointment) #15

Open Than-Duc-Huy opened 1 year ago

Than-Duc-Huy commented 1 year ago

Wrong appointment instruction

The sample workflow says that appointment add has to be provided with service description but the main content of appointment heading and command summary said service id

This leads to the inability of the tester in testing Appointment functionality

Sample workflow (use description)

image.png

DG (use description)

image.png

Content of Appointment (use ID)

image.png

image.png

Command Summary (use ID)

image.png

nus-pe-bot commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

Indeed the description here is incorrect. But all of examples given in adding appointments are correct elsewhere. E.g., sample workflow.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue severity

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

Reason for disagreement: I disagree to elevate this to the Teaching team. I was also wonder if this bug is severity.Medium or severity.High

TLDR for teaching team: A Documentation issue causes complication for the Tester in PE Part 1

There are the service name and service id implementation

DG and the actual product implement service name

However in the UG, the detailed description content and Command Summary (which, I believe, are more authoritative) tell the user to use service id. The service name only appears once in the UG, in the Sample Workflow section.

The tester, wanted to maximize the time allocated to part 1 of PE, only read the Detailed Description and Command Summary and did not inspect all of the UG. So the tester only used service id which did not give the desired result. Hence, the tester was unable to test the "task" and "appointment" features.