search

flairekq / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Missing object creation in the sequence diagram for parsing of commands #6

Open flairekq opened 2 years ago

flairekq commented 2 years ago

The sequence diagram shown in the image below for the parsing of commands is missing the object creation notation for XYZCommandParser. image.png

image.png

nus-se-bot commented 2 years ago

Team's Response

From CS2103T's Website: https://nus-cs2103-ay2122s2.github.io/website/admin/tp-pe.html#:~:text=Details%20missing%20from,easier%20to%20read.

Details missing from a diagram: In a similar vein to the above, omitting details from a diagram is OK if it does not mislead/hinder the reader. Forgetting to include something is not the same as a deliberate decision to omit something in order to simplify the diagram e.g., the latter could accompany a note to the reader to mention which/some parts have been omitted, if it is worthwhile for the reader to know the omission. While many UML notations are optional, haphazard omissions without a good reason can affects consistency which affects readability e.g., it can be considered a minor bug if a sequence diagram omits an activation bars in some places but not in other places and yet the omission doesn't make the diagram any easier to read.

Omission of the object creation bar does not mislead the reader.

Furthermore, we did include it inside of the puml code, as seen by the "create xcp":

image.png

However, because of puml's limitations, it was not shown.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: Well if the team was trying to simplify the diagram, I don't understand why would only omitting the activation bar for the constructor of XYZCommandParser and its return arrow help to reduce the clutter while the other activation bars and return arrow are not omitted. Based on the details that the team quoted from the module website (the highlighted point in the image shown below), such an inconsistent omission can be considered a minor bug.

image.png

Besides, even if the team did include the full notation of the object creation in the .puml codes, I don't think its the responsibility of the tester to look through the .puml codes as technically for the DG, testers can assume the pov of developers that want to contribute to the project but have to first understand how things work first. The developer should only be expected to figure out how things work just by reading the DG and not looking through the codes for the diagrams as they might not have the knowledge of the choice of software used to draw the diagrams. Moreover, the team mentioned that Furthermore, we did include it inside of the puml code, as seen by the "create xcp" However, because of puml's limitations, it was not shown. I believe that this is not a limitation but rather a bug that wasn't solved by the team since other sequence diagrams like Undo Sequence Diagram has the full notation showing object creation.

image.png