soc-se-bot
commented
2 months ago Team's Response
It is not required for the DG to have a UML diagram for all features. We only included implementations and diagrams for more complex features and where a diagram would have helped clarify better.
Thus this is not a bug.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Firstly, the screenshot you have taken is from your team's own DG. You are trying to argue that there is no requirement to have a UML diagram for all features based on your team's own words in your DG. This is clearly wrong, and cannot be used as a justification for the lack of implementations and UML diagrams for certain features in your DG.
Attached below is the screenshot from the 2103T website, a legitimate source that shows the actual requirements for this project, and it clearly says that each person is expected to describe the implementation of at least one enhancement he/she has added, and the expected length is 1+ page per person. Though your team did meet the requirements for the number of implementations (4 people in your group, 4 implementations in the DG: Help, Filter, Clear, Archive), the total length of your implementation portion is 3 pages, which falls short of the expected requirement of at least 4 pages. This proves that your implementation portion is lacking. Additionally, your team mostly provided implementations for enhancements that are already in AB3(Help, Filter, Clear) with only minor enhancements, while leaving out the more important commands that your team coded out from scratch (that I mentioned in my bug report), which will be considered more complex features and would definitely have benefitted from having explanations and UML Diagrams. Hence, I feel that your implementation portion is definitely lacking, and your argument that you only included implementations and diagrams for more complex features is invalid.
Furthermore, users who read the DG would usually be more technically inclined, and are able to understand advanced technical concepts. Hence, leaving out the implementations and UML diagrams would hinder the reader, as they would be required to put in more effort than necessary by having to look through your team's source code to figure out those more complex features listed in my bug report actually work (what checks are required, how the parsing of the command works, etc.), which could have been fixed by simply explaining it in the implementation portion of the DG and providing UML Diagrams to describe the process of entering the respective command. Hence, your claim that this is not a bug is wrong as it is clearly providing inconveniences to the reader. For easier reference, I have included a screenshot below, taken from the 2103T website describing what constitutes as a hindrance to the reader.
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** If you were missing implementations and UML Diagrams for less complex features like adding/deleting a person, that are already originally present in AB3, I would have agreed with you that this bug should be of severity.Low, as your team only made minor changes to those commands like making additional checks (eg.checking with the archived person list). However, as you are missing key features like `adding a reservation` and `sorting a reservation`, that are coded from scratch, I believe that this would cause occasional inconvenience to the user as it is up to them to spend more effort reading through your source code to slowly figure out how these commands work, and they would have to do it a total of 4 times regarding your 4 missing implementations and UML diagrams. Thus, I believe that this bug should be of severity.Medium, as some users like the more technically inclined ones reading your DG, would be occasionally hindered in understanding the new important features of your product.
The implementations and their UML diagrams for the following features are missing: