soc-pe-bot
commented
2 years ago Team's Response
No details provided by team.
The 'Original' Bug
[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]
Blank Glossary content.
Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.
Didn't provide Glossary content.
[original: nus-cs2113-AY2122S2/pe-interim#359] [original labels: type.DocumentationBug severity.High]
Their Response to the 'Original' Bug
[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]
Are there any terms in the DG that needs to be clarified? The team believes that the DG is readable without a glossary.
However, we do acknowledge that we should have removed the glossary if its not used.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue duplicate status
Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.IssueUnclear]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: This is a documentation bug as the Glossary section is completely empty. If the team think the DG is readable without Glossary, they could have removed this section completely. However, it is still there and the readers are expecting something in that section.
Furthermore, it is stated clear in the documentation grading criteria that important terms missing under Glossary is consider a bug.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.Low]
Originally [severity.Medium]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: This severity should be medium as this section does not contain any information at all , not missing some terms only.
Nothing found in the glossary section of DG.