seadragon2000341
commented
1 year ago Team's Response
Hi there! Thanks for pointing out the issue!
Firstly, we believe that the term missing is clear, where it means that the user is expected to provide an index, but did not do so. Secondly, we agree that the term invalid is vague, where it could mean either incorrect format or out of range.
In our case, we intended it to mean incorrect format. That is why we included 1c which talks about out of range. As a reader, there are two possible cases that you may encounter:
Case 1: You think that invalid means incorrect format only
In such a case, there would be no problem with our developer guide, because we covered the case of incorrect format in 1b and out of range in 1c.
Case 2: You think that invalid means incorrect format and out of range
In such a case, you would be hinted that your interpretation is probably incorrect because we included 1c. If invalid consisted of both incorrect format and out of range, then there is no meaning for us to have 1c.
No matter which case it is, our team believes that the extension for out of range is clearly separated from the case of incorrect format, since we included the extension 1c. Hence, we conveyed the correct meaning in our developer guide. However, we do agree that the term invalid could be specified more clearly to avoid such confusion, although it is not necessary. We would take this into future consideration, hence we classified it as response.NotInScope.
Duplicate status (if any):
--
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.
missing and invalid indices are not explained or shown. Both could be interpreted to be the same. For example, I interpret an invalid index the same as an index that is out of range, since both can be considered invalid in this context.
[original: nus-cs2103-AY2223S2/pe-interim#595] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]