search

akhilvuputuri / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Lack of implementation for all commands for Module, Student features #9

Open akhilvuputuri opened 4 years ago

akhilvuputuri commented 4 years ago

The Module and Students features' implementations only provide explanation and elaboration for 1 chosen command each and not all the commands shown in the UG.

nus-pe-bot commented 4 years ago

Team's Response

Here we quote the DG Deliverable from the CS2103 website, "Cover all user-testable features but no need to cover existing AB3 features if you did not touch them." Since the CRUD and list functions are part of the AB3 features, we did not feel a need to repeat the obvious.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

Reason for disagreement: It is an invalid response by the team that the features are in AB3, thus, need not be explained here. There are three problems here.

Firstly, assuming that the implementation is the same as that in AB3, this being a developer guide for THIS application, it needs to be self-sufficient in explaining all the features implemented. It is not enough as a developer to claim that is not required by simply claiming that it might have been explained in an app which they obtained a basic skeleton from.

Secondly, I am quite sure that given that the app is quite different in functionality to AB3, much of the CRUD and list commands have been heavily modified to meet the needs especially majority of the class names and methods. I find it implausible that the implementations are exactly the same as that in AB3, thus, believe that there is an extremely severe flaw in the developer guide as it is incomplete.

Lastly, the least severe problem is the inconsistency of the one randomly chosen command to explain for some of the features. It seems like a mere attempt to show that they have done at least a diagram and explanation of the implementation for the purpose of grading and not as a means to allow developers to understand the implementation of the application for future development.

:question: Issue severity

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

Reason for disagreement: Severity is at least a Medium-High (based on your level of leniency, with my opinion being High) as future developers will not be able to properly understand the structure of the code without any proper explanation on its implementation which is essentially the purpose of the Developer Guide.