search

gerteck / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

DG has insufficient information on manual testing #11

Open gerteck opened 4 months ago

gerteck commented 4 months ago

There should be more information on how to test various commands not just shutdown, delete commands.

Application has total of 21 commands, but no instructions are given besides basic exit and delete command.

image.png

Providing accurate and more steps to test would benefit users who have never used the app.

nus-se-bot commented 4 months ago

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

Insufficient manual testing guidance in DG

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.

The instructions for manual testing is insufficient, only have delete command. It would be good to include more commands.

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#4214] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

Thank you for reporting. However, we have to choose it as NotInScope because this issue doesn't affect the current usage of the product and is not actually a flaw. The most important section for manual testing is the Launch and Shutdown as these are the two necessary steps for the testing to be carried out. Other than them, other instructions are not necessary. Specifically, we have explained very clearly how each feature works in previous sections of DG. "Deleting a person" is provided just as an example to inspire the users on how to test the product. Including too many details for testing would make the DG unnecessarily long, which hinders the user's reading experience. The reality is, some people might prefer concise and simple DG just instructing about the implementation of the system and significant features, while others might prefer very detailed explanations for every aspect of the product, such as the testing steps. It is very hard to satisfy all reader's tastes. We might want to consider adding more testing examples in future iterations, but providing the work we have already done, the proposed issue is not in the scope. image.png

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.NotInScope`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** Taken directly from DG deliverables: ![image.png](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gerteck/pe/main/files/c79764f0-bbd7-4d12-8e84-6d9e791b9c5a.png) Given the inaccurate instructions are themselves already considered bugs, I think missing instructions should be bugs as well. I don't think it is right to circumvent inaccurate instructions by just not including the appendix altogether (apart from what was already there from AB3). I apologise if I am interpreting this wrongly. > Specifically, we have explained very clearly how each feature works in previous sections of DG. I believe that explaining clearly how each feature works is quite different from instructions for manual testing, unless the intention conveyed here is "do it yourself". Additionally, given that the DG does not really specify much internal details in the implementation, nor do much edits to the design portion, the tester would have no way to conduct any form of greybox or glassbox testing out of the box. Additionally, the view that certain readers might want concise and simple DG does not seem to justify not including any additional manual testing instructions. > The most important section for manual testing is the Launch and Shutdown as these are the two necessary steps for the testing to be carried out. Other than them, other instructions are not necessary. I think that there is merit in instructions for testing the core / main features of the application being necessary as well. Ultimately, imo, to classify this response as NotInScope would be to discredit and shortchange every other team who followed the course instructions for the DG deliverables, which specified to cover all user-testable features, even if they included only some minimal amount. I feel like it also puts testers in the PE at a disadvantage as well since it is something that can be reasonable expected which helps provide structure for testing. With this in mind, I feel that the severity should be changed to `severity.Medium`, instead of the initial severity.Low, upon further deliberation. Thank you!