nus-se-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
The four command types are fixated to their purposes and don't have variations. Users reading the UG can directly use these formated keywords under each section just like the command words. In addition, users don't really have to provide command types themselves as they are already given in the examples in corresponding sections and in autocomplete when the user types in each command word.
While the suggestion to put all prefixes in one centralised places can help with user understanding, some may actually argue it is irrelevant since all the commands are included in the summary section and this helps understanding better. Moreover, by examining the AB3, we find that our choice of not including prefix summary also inherets from their UG styling.
In essence, the usage of the command will likely not be affected by the current description.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: By using the same prefix for arguments s,ps, w and pw for the delete command but other commands such as the add command which uses the exact same prefix ct/ but only takes in s or w. This will cause confusion to new users as they might assume that ct/ allows them to use ps or pw for add command as well.
The main issue here is not about the centralising since it is just a suggestion on my part but rather the confusion in documentation to new users.
Delete command introduces new prefixes ps, and pw, which can be better organised at the top of the delete section as it is confusing. All available prefixes should be compiled together in a centralised place for easy understanding, since some other commands do not accept ps and pw as input.
Would be better if deleting product is refactored into a new command.