soc-pe-bot
commented
7 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]
Manual Testing in DG does not include all testable features
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.
Most features are missing from the manual testing segment in the appendix (only has edit and delete)
[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#1821] [original labels: type.DocumentationBug severity.Medium]
Their Response to the 'Original' Bug
[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]
Hi tester. Referring to the full screenshot from the course website, we have attempted to minimise repeated information from our UG. For every single command in the UG, we have listed 2 to 3 important testing commands that users can run for guidance and to copy-paste:
Nevertheless, we do agree that we can add to the manual testing with more specific instructions. Thus, we accept this issue but at a lower severity.
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)
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.High`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** I respectfully disagree with the decision to mark the "Insufficient manual testing" issue as a low-severity bug, and I strongly believe it should be classified as high severity. This issue is not just a minor oversight; it significantly impairs the functionality and usability of the Developer Guide, especially for its primary audience, which are future developers. 1. Impact on Usability: The Developer Guide is an essential tool for understanding and utilizing the software effectively. Insufficient manual testing instructions, particularly for crucial features like affiliations, severely limit the guide's utility. The absence of comprehensive testing guidance for important features hinders developers' ability to thoroughly test and understand the application, which is a critical aspect of a Developer Guide. 2. Affects Most Users: The issue affects most, if not all, users of the Developer Guide. Every developer relying on this guide for testing and understanding the application's functionalities will face challenges due to the lack of adequate manual testing instructions. This is not a peripheral concern but a central one, as thorough testing is fundamental to software development and maintenance. 3. Potential for Major Problems: The insufficient manual testing guidance can lead to significant problems. It could result in incomplete or incorrect implementation of features, potentially causing major functional issues in the application. In the worst-case scenario, it might even lead to the software being used improperly or errors being overlooked, which can have far-reaching consequences. 4. High Expectations for Developer Guides: Developer Guides are expected to provide comprehensive, clear, and detailed instructions for all aspects of software, including testing. The current state of the manual testing section falls short of these expectations, making the guide less effective and almost unusable for its intended purpose. As seen from prof's reply below, the requirements section needs to be comprehensive  Hence, it is a high severity documentation bug as the number of missing test cases affects future developers in using the final product significantly. In fact, clearly from the group's DG, there was no effort in adding tests more specific towards their application (only having tests that AB3 gave) and thus making the entire testing portion of the DG useless for all future developers. Therefore , I decided that High severity is more suitable for this issue.  Also, I think the team is highly mistaking the usage of the user guide and the developer guide when saying " Referring to the full screenshot from the course website, we have attempted to minimise repeated information from our UG. For every single command in the UG, we have listed 2 to 3 important testing commands that users can run for guidance and to copy-paste" The developer guide is intended for future developers who need detailed technical insights, including comprehensive testing procedures, to understand, maintain, and enhance the application. The overlap of content between these two guides should be strategic and not a reason to underrepresent critical information in either. In fact, your DG did not direct the developer towards the user guide in the manual testing section either. The lack of specificity in the testing procedures in the Developer Guide, particularly the reliance on generic tests from AB3 without adaptation to the unique features of your application, is a significant oversight. The Developer Guide should not merely reiterate basic information available in the User Guide but should expand on it to provide a deeper, technical understanding of the application. This includes detailed testing scenarios, edge cases, and examples tailored to your application's specific functionalities. By not adequately addressing the unique aspects of your application in the Developer Guide, future developers are left without essential guidance. This oversight not only hampers their ability to effectively test and understand the application but also potentially compromises the application's future development and maintenance. As a result, this issue goes beyond mere inconvenience and poses a serious risk to the application's long-term functionality and reliability.
All the manual testing seems to be from AB3 No important features like your affiliations which seems very importnat in yuour application