nus-se-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
Thank you for the bug report! Based on our interpretation of the module's instructions, this section is supposed to be a complement to the User Guide as emphasized by the highlighted points. However, we feel that our User Guide has sufficiently covered the test cases in Appendix C where we have clearly shown the expected visual and logical behaviour for almost all commands.
We have changed the severity from High to VeryLow as our User Guide already fulfils these requirements.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I think it is absurd that you think that the user guide can replace the "Instructions for Manual Testing" segment of the developer guide.
The user guide does not show invalid inputs and the kinds of error that a tester might experience, as is done in the AB3 example:
Additionally, we can understand more peculiar behaviour features and have them explained to us without all the fluff a user guide normally entails.
"Instructions for Manual Testing" serves a very specific purpose, to get testers off the ground for testing and to have some kind of path to follow while testing.
You highlighted "Minimize repeating information that are already mentioned in the UG". I am quite sure that that relates to more general stuff like what that command is used for. The UG states it so the DG does not have to.
How about the more prominently bolded "Cover all user-testable features"? Not a single user-testable feature is covered besides the leftover ones from AB3's DG.
If your user guide can really substitute the "Instructions for Manual Testing", I think that highlights a much bigger problem with the user guide than it does with this bug.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.High]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I stand by the severity.High.
Any tester will look for instructions for manual testing in the developer guide first. Especially given the context that as part of a CS2103 module, it should have this section and cover all possible user-testable features.
This affects all testers and some developers that would like to try out the application from a developer's perspective and that is a large portion of the people that might read the DG.
The fact that it is missing with not even a word of 'use the User Guide to test' shows laziness in updating.
It is extremely inconvenient to start testing this product, requiring sifting through the user guide and all its 'you' language and fluff just to find the few bits of information to test is definitely a major source of inconvenience.
Additionally, for the reasons given for objection to the rejection of the bug, I stand by the rating.
This was in the DG deliverable section.
Nothing added for instructions for manual testing. Difficult to get off the ground for manual testing.