nus-se-bot
commented
1 year ago Team's Response
Severity change to low
The rationale for changing the severity to low is because in our UG, we gave context regarding each feature regarding teams. Therefore it provides context for both users and developers to understand our features, it is unlikely that there will be any confusion or risk of delayed implementation. The missing use cases are thus low risk.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.Low]
Originally [severity.Medium]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I believe use cases in DG are completely different from command explanation in the UG. DG is from perspective of developer - not user. Use cases in DG cover aspects that UG does not, for example, extension. UG may have covered details similar to MSS in use cases, but could not cover extension. Thus, I believe the team cannot say that since UG covers the context of the commands, there is no need to include use cases in DG, and the assumption that missing use cases in DG does not cause confusion to users/of low risk is not correct.
Most importantly, in their DG, the team currently have only 3 use cases - out of a total of about 15 features they have. This means their DG only cover 20% of the features, there are too many important use cases missing. Thus, I believe that even though missing 1-2 use cases could be considered of Low severity, missing 80% of the use cases should be considered Medium severity. This, in my opinion, is very reasonable since a team that misses 1-2 important use cases shouldn't be penalized as severely as a team that misses a lot of them. As it causes buggy behavior in numerous areas and affect future developers, the severity should be modified proportionately.
Missing uses cases for features related to team, DG currently only covers those related to contacts management