DG -- Lack of explanationo f DG

[applepiofmyeye]

The explanation between the difference of illegal command and invalid command is slightly misleading, as in the UG there wasn't anything mentioned about an illegal command, and only the explanation of the Exceptions (Illegal___Exceptions) mentioned about the Illegal commands more clearly.

[nus-se-script]

Team's Response

Thank you for your feedback!

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

Invalid VS Illegal Command

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.

---

![image.png](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe/master/files/6d984c40-61cf-4a4e-91df-609cfa656e63.png

Your current implementation does not include different permissions for different users. I might be reading it wrongly but based on the way the Developer Guide is written. It looks like there is an implementation for it.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#1769] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

Thanks for the feedback.

It seems that there are some confusion regarding the difference between illegal and invalid commands in our DG. We attribute this to a lack of explicit definition of invalid and illegal on our part for the DG.

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 severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Low`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** The `very low` severity is meant for cosmetic and very minimal issues that would not affect the DG's credibility, such as typos, grammar issues. However, this issue indicates that there is a "permission" feature in the software: something that is mentioned quite a few times in the DG:    I personally still feel that this can even be a `medium` severity because this documentation bug will affect readers' (developers') understanding and continued implementation on the current product. Although the issue could be fixed with a simple section of defining the two, the bug is of quite high severity since it implies a completely unmentioned feature of permissions -- affecting the DG's and software's credibility

---