Inconsistent self-invocation return arrows

[dinhnhobao]

This has. This doesn't

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

Hi there.

The methods pointed out without return arrows are void methods, therefore should not have return arrows anyway.

Severity (if any): very low because this is purely cosmetic and no usage effects (if any). Note that this is explained despite us rejecting it, as the Github forum requires us to explain any changes to severity.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: I agree that this is a severity.VeryLow issue. https://nus-cs2103-ay1920s2.github.io/website/se-book-adapted/chapters/uml.html#minimal-notation: It did not say anywhere in our module website that "void methods should not have return arrows," so your argument is incorrect.

A quick online search also confirms that void methods indeed have arrows, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2934687/what-exactly-does-the-return-line-dotted-line-represents-in-a-sequence-diagram?rq=1

However, I belive that return arrows are optional, so you can just omit it entirely as what you did. However, the explanation is incorrect.

---

:question: Issue severity

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

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---