search

Yufannnn / CS2103T-Practical-Exam

0 stars 0 forks source link

Inconsistency in the UML #19

Open Yufannnn opened 1 year ago

Yufannnn commented 1 year ago

Multiplicity is mentioned in this UML

Screenshot 2023-04-14 151805.png

but somehow ignored in the following UML, this results in inconsistent level of abstraction.

Screenshot 2023-04-14 151759.png

nus-se-bot commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

Hi!

Multiplicity is optional in UML diagrams, so we only included it where we felt it would be pertinent. In this case, we only thought it relevant in the first diagram, as the first diagram indicates our actual choice of architecture, and thus should have more details.

On the other hand, in the second diagram, we only found it necessary to include multiplicities for the Variant class' relationships, as that is the part of the architecture that has been changed from the first diagram.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: Following the logic stated by your team, the two UMLs are still inconsistent.

we only found it necessary to include multiplicities for the Variant class' relationships, as that is part of the architecture that has been changed from the first diagram.

image.png

however, multiplicity for UniquePersonList is still included when it is not changed at all. Based on the logic provide this multiplicity should also be ignored.