search

dinhnhobao / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Alternative chosen not clear #20

Open dinhnhobao opened 4 years ago

dinhnhobao commented 4 years ago

Alternative 1 is slower in the worst case, so why did your team choose it?

image.png

nus-pe-bot commented 4 years ago

Team's Response

Hi there.

Our team has chosen Alternative 1, which is shown here:

image.png

This is because, the pros outweight the cons, and we prioritise getting nutritional information right, as with what we are taught: Make It Work. Make It Right. Make It Fast. We think this is a rather obvious indication on which is better, so we chose Alternative 1.

The cons occur much less frequently, rarely in fact, and therefore the pain isn't felt often, and the pain isn't big at all. Nonetheless, user food entries, keeping within our stated limits for number of entries, would not cause much of a issue of slow performance either. Therefore, the points you mentioned are not really applicable.

Moreover, this appears to be pinpointing at something which should not be considered a bug. Therefore, we believe this should not be penalisable. Instead, it seems more like a suggestion, if anything. We reject this as a possible bug at all.

Cheers!

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]