search

heejet / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

The lifeline continues after the object is deleted #16

Open heejet opened 1 year ago

heejet commented 1 year ago

From what we are taught, the lifeline should stop after the object is destroyed. I know this is a bug in plantUML but i think it is better to add in a note informing the user. Similar to AB3

image.png

image.png

nus-se-bot commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

Thank you for the report!

Unfortunately, after much deliberation we have decided to reject this bug that you have issued.

The lifeline extends after the object being destroyed is clearly an issue due to the limitation of PlantUML. Hence this shouldn't be considered as a bug for our application.

image.png

As such we hope you understand why we are rejecting this issue.

We hope this clarifies, thank you!

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: Unfortunately I cannot accept your reason for rejecting this issue. Firstly even bugs inherited from ABM are counted (which you refenced the use of plantUML from).

image.png

The lifeline extends after the object being destroyed is clearly an issue due to the limitation of PlantUML. Hence this shouldn't be considered as a bug for our application.

While it is indeed a limitation of PlantUML as I have acknowledge in my original bug report, the fact remains that this is still a bug with your documentation. Instead of brushing it aside as a flaw in PlantUML I think it would be better to address the issue and include note telling readers that you are aware of this issue and this is a limitation of plantUML. Readers who are not familiar with PlantUMI right mistakenly regard this as a deliberate choice by your team.

Furthermore, the lifeline extending after the destroy marker clearly contradicts the standard notation in the textbook and are most certainly misleading (the extended lifeline can cause developers to be under the impression that the entity is still available.

image.png

I gave marked this as severity.VeryLow initially because I gave your team the benefit of the doubt that this is an accidental cosmetic issue and not deliberate. However after reading your response, it is clear to see that your team was well aware of this limitation and made the conscious choice to accept the ambiguity provided in your sequence diagrams and not take any action to mitigate this despite the contradictions what was taught in the textbook. This clearly goes against the module principles on high quality software engineering.

image.png