Inconsistencies in examples for commands

[jellywaiyan]

For some commands with optional parameters, the example command for it includes all the optional parameters. However, for some other commands, the example does not include all optional parameters, which is a bit inconsistent.

I think this would be a good example. For edit person, there are many optional parameters that were not included in the example.

However, for edit task, all the optional parameters are included

[nus-pe-script]

Team's Response

A module requirement is for there to be a sufficient number of examples. Hence we tried to make it consistent with just one example for all commands.

We already mentioned that some fields are optional and it is not meaningful to add all combinations for the optional fields. In the editPerson’s example, there is inclusion of two fields to edit, hence it shows the purpose of editing multiple fields clearly. Hence, it is self explanatory for the reader to modify the example as they see fit and we believe that this inconsistency does not hinder users.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---