search

gabyang / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Does not specify exactly what UI.java does am confused when I opened the link to see the code #14

Open gabyang opened 1 year ago

gabyang commented 1 year ago

image.png

nus-se-bot commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

Hi, thanks for your bug report! We are rejecting it because...

image.png

  1. We believe that this is sufficient for the given file. The file in the screenshot is literally an interface with one method, and at most 13 lines. Additionally, on the CS2103T website, an API is defined as...

    1. An Application Programming Interface (API) specifies the interface through which other programs can interact with a software component. It is a contract between the component and its clients.
    2. A class has an API (e.g., API of the Java String class, API of the Python str class) which is a collection of public methods that you can invoke to make use of the class.

Thus, this interface is indeed an API - it has a public method start() for other components to use. The description does fit the file.

  1. Secondly, our group did not even touch this file, as seen from our groups' profile pictures not appearing in the screenshot. Hence, we believe that additional explanation for this interface is unnecessary.
  2. Honestly, we are really unclear what this issue is trying to say - but if this is a nit-pick for linking Ui.java, we believe the link is still helpful since the DG is for developers and as a developer, they may want to be linked to relevant java files.

    Items for the Tester to Verify

    :question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: Hi, thanks for justifying. To preface my disagreement, I am approaching your DG from the perspective of a Developer that recently got onboarded onto your platform, which is a reasonable assumption to make. Responding to the points that you have raised:

1) It would not be relevant to quote CS2103T website for the definition of an API because it was not linked in the paragraph or sentence of the relevant screenshot to begin with. The developer will base his understanding of your DG from his own point of view rather than from CS2103T. I believe a developer (especially those that are newer to SWE) would not have sufficient knowledge of the given file given the very few lines that he has got to work with. Hence, more detailed explanation is needed in your DG if you want to link that file.

2) Yes, understand. But that is not a valid reason to reject a bug. Existing bugs from AB3 are still considered as bugs.

3) Yes honestly, I this is nitpicking. As a developer, I may want to be linked to the relevant java files, that is true. But it is not completely necessary.

In my opinion, this would not be considered a bug if your team decided not to link the code. But because you did, it added an additional layer of complexity which needs to be explained to prevent confusion. Because this explanation is not available in your DG, the Developer might be negatively impacted.

Just picture yourself getting an internship at Google, and while reading their >1000 page documentation for a feature, you see a link and you open it. In that link is 13 lines of code with barely any explanation. It states that it is an API interface for UI. Then you continue reading their documentation and you see that there are MainWindow, CommandBox, Display, (hundreds of other parts)etc etc... Then you wonder, where the heck is all these things in this 13 lines of code.

Hence, this in my opinion is considered a low severity bug because it causes potential minor inconveniences and confusion for the developer.