nus-pe-script
commented
9 months ago Team's Response
As seen in the notes, it is an acceptable step in the use case. The entering of patient ID does not specify any UI details as it does not mention how this patient ID has to be entered, eg by typing in a box or by clicking on the patient ID. Hence, we felt that this Use Case step was appropriate as it allowed us to state the requirement of how we were going to determine which patient to delete.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Hi team! Thank you for your input, but I disagree that it should be rejected.
In my opinion, step 3 of UC06 ("User enters patient ID") still encapsulates some how the UI is designed (i.e. how a user selects a "specific patient" to delete). While I understand that this "does not mention how this patient ID has to be entered", I believe that the reference to entering a patient ID still encapsulates extraneous information as to the mechanics of how the user interacts with MedBook, which is not necessary when writing use cases as per the textbook excerpt below. Step 2 ("User requests to delete a specific patient") is thus sufficient in describing the user's intention.
To elaborate, in your counterexample (UC23 - Transfer Money), we note how steps 2, 3 and 4 are kept rather general ("user requests xxx") in merely describing the user's intentions -- I believe this is a sufficient level of detail, hence in your original use case, step 2 is enough.
I hope this clarifies my stance on this issue! While it is a bit pedantic regarding the formatting of use cases, I believe that it is still something rather important to take note of. Thank you for your consideration!
In the below use case, step 3 is not necessary because this contains details as to how the delete function works (a user must enter a patient ID). Instead, step 2 is enough to encapsulate this idea of deleting a specific patient.