Open RunjiaChen opened 3 months ago
What do others think?
@RunjiaChen To add, as this is a graded deliverable, I can't give direct comments, but it is fine to discuss among peers here. I can add point to some relevant resources though:
A general comment: When a diagram is too big/complicated, we recommend breaking it down to smaller diagrams. But overdoing that will result in many small diagrams, which is not helpful either.
Tagging a few other students (randomly selected) who have completed related increments, in case they can pitch in: @minreiseah @bgopi23 @JonChong98 @hjungwoo01 @acekhoon @belligerentbeagle @Tsenrae @justincred @ChuaZiLong @CJerrong @ReflectiveObsidian @kwuunnn @yeoshuheng @ashleyclx @TheodoreKooo @casaarlai @delishad21 @teojunda @rertyy @guanquann Others are welcome to pitch in too.
maybe u can use a single diagram and change it to User enters attribute
with a link so both name and email can point to the same diagram?
I agree with @bgopi23. To add on, I think it will be visually repetitive as a similar chunk of codes exists as multiple copies in the file (with minor changes), so it will be good if you can "abstract" their similarities out.
For my portion on the DG, I talked about my feature which prompts the user to enter the details of the contacts they want to add. I split the DG into stages of accepting different fields, as shown in the examples below
The first diagram illustrates the flow of entering the email field, while the second diagram illustrates the flow of entering the name field.
In the use case of the DG, I gave an example of the wrong input by the user, and and a correct input afterwards, then I used to diagram above to illustrate the sequence of the flow of the user actions
May I know if this may come off as too repetitive? The diagrams and the flow of actions are largely similar, but the type of 'wrong inputs' for name and email fields are fundamentally different.