search

lil1n / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

architecture diagram and architecture sequence diagram seems to be inconsistent? #21

Open lil1n opened 1 year ago

lil1n commented 1 year ago

image.png

image.png

architecture sequence diagram shows that user interact with MoneyMind and UI does not interact with MoneyMind, however, in the architecture diagram, UI was observed to interact with MoneyMind? Same with the interaction with storage and data?

nus-pe-script commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

problem w.r.t. the same UML diagram

The 'Original' Bug

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

Undefined term in developer guide

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.

image.png

The term ps that is used in the diagram is not stated anywhere in the developer guide.

[original: nus-cs2113-AY2223S2/pe-interim#880] [original labels: severity.VeryLow type.DocumentationBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thanks for pointing out, It is indeed undefined.

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: As per the module website: image.png

One issue is in the with the consistency between the diagrams (which would require modifying the .puml files), while the other issue is with the definition of ps.

Unless the issue of ps is to be fixed by altering the diagram to some other terms that would not require a definition in the DG, then I would agree with flagging these issues as duplicates (to be honest I think it can still be argued that the fixes are independent as they are at different lines in the .puml files, ultimately depends on how independent and dependent is defined)

Otherwise my reasoning is as follows: modifying the .puml files and modifying the DG.md files (to add the definition of ps) are independent fixes at different places.

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Low`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** I don't agree that bugs with the diagrams, especially the inconsistency between the architecture diagram and architecture sequence diagram, are cosmetic bug as developers would need to refer to these diagrams to understand the architecture of the product. Hence, I believe that this is more than a cosmetic issue, as it hinders with the reader's understanding, causing confusion. Same for the reasoning on the issue with undefined ps. Having a confusion on the definition of ps would hinder the reader's understanding of the product, which would be more than a cosmetic bug