search

chanyijuan / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Inconsistency in command names #4

Open chanyijuan opened 2 years ago

chanyijuan commented 2 years ago

Am curious as to why some commands have specified the object the command works on whereas other commands are simply a verb. For example, there is only one command related to 'adding', so why the need to specify 'addClient', while there is also only one command related to 'listing', so why not 'listClient'? Or why not just 'add' instead of 'addClient'? I think the application would look much more polished and consistent if commands had the same structure.

Screenshot 2022-04-16 at 2.29.05 PM.png

Naming convention suggestion: listClient (list), markClient (mark), clearClient (clear)

nus-pe-bot commented 2 years ago

Team's Response

The reason we have addClient instead of add is because we also have addProc, so we need to rename to distinguish these two commands. The same goes for list too. (and clear has only one variant, so it's clear)

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: By the team's reasoning, their commands edit and editProc also do not seem to follow the rule of "only one variant" existing.

Although there is only one clear command, because there is a clear distinction between client and procedure-related commands (add, delete), I feel that it is easier for users to use the platform if all commands follow the {action}{Target} naming convention.