search

Vinodjayakumar124 / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

DeleteCommandParser does not have a destroy marker and doesn't exist in the diagram #10

Open Vinodjayakumar124 opened 1 year ago

Vinodjayakumar124 commented 1 year ago

The Note states that DeleteCommandParser should end at the destroy marker (X) but there is no DeleteCommandParser in the diagram.

image.png

soc-se-bot commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

Thanks for the bug report! Indeed, this a typo where we should have DeleteClientCommand instead of the DeleteCommandParser. We have downgraded the severity from Medium to Very.Low as it is only a typo in a disclaimer note. In the diagram there is only one destroy marker and the diagram itself has the correct nomenclature, thereby not causing any considerable inconvenience to the user in being able to understand the diagram. Moreover, the note is only on PlantUML's limitation and imparts no other crucial information to the user.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue severity

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

Reason for disagreement: For a developer reading the DG of this application, who has also never used the AB3 application before, they would not have any prior knowledge on what DeleteCommandParser refers to. This class does not exist in the code base either. Additionally, in the diagram, the 'red cross' is placed on the Command (i.e DeleteClientCommand) rather than the parser (i.e ClientCommandParser) whereas in the note section, the 'red cross' is referred to as being placed on the parser (i.e ClientCommandParser).

As such by using that term, the developer will now face 2 sources of confusion.

  1. The non existence of the DeleteCommandParser class and why it was referenced to in the 'Note' section.
  2. The placement of the 'red cross' on the command rather than the parser.

The confusion will definitely hinder the developers progress when reading the DG and hence, it is not purely cosmetic and should not be a given a severity of VeryLow. Furthermore, I do agree that the reader will be able to continue to read the rest of this DG even without the clearing up the confusion faced here. As such, I believe that the severity of Medium ("A flaw that causes occasional inconvenience to some readers but they can continue to use the product.") is appropriate as the the reader is inconvenienced to a large extent but is able to read to the rest of the DG despite the confusion.