search

XIA-LIYI / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

DG: Unclear expression about future extension #17

Open XIA-LIYI opened 3 years ago

XIA-LIYI commented 3 years ago

Why we need to use RoleRequirement to finish leave feature is not clear to the reader. It seems weird and confusing.

image.png

nus-se-bot commented 3 years ago

Team's Response

This is simply a suggested extension to future developers on the app. Since Leave is coded as a special Role, it would make sense to implement quotas using RoleRequirement. However, how future developers want to implement such functionality is up to them, hence a vague suggestion is left there. Marked as not in scope as the development of leave quotas is not intended by the current version, hence no details can be provided anyways.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

Reason for disagreement: Although the extension is not considered in current development, its explanation is inside current DG. What we test is documentation so that we need to make documentation readable and understandable. In another word, "Developing leave feature" is actually not in scope. But making DG understable is in scope.

Back to this part itself, it is very unreasonable or not logic to state a word "RoleRequirement" here and no more breif explanation. How can future team use this suggestion to develop the feature? If so, it is better not to write this meaningless part.

:question: Issue severity

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

Reason for disagreement: This issue is regarding actual content and future development. It is not like a typo or else. So marking as very low is not situable.