Better referencing using `sd` frames

[nus-pe-bot]

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.

---

I think the sequence diagrams with the factory method can be replaced with an SD frame that states how the component works instead.

It can be confusing to use a fictitious method and how the 2 diagrams relate to each other. I think an SD frame would be more appropriate here, together with other diagrams that has the same issue.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#333] [original labels: type.DocumentationBug severity.VeryLow]}

[yisiox]

Team's Response

Thanks for the suggestion, but we believed that this was the better approach for the following reasons:

1. The ref frame would require the CommandType, t:CommandType and DeleteCommandto be included in the first diagram still, as per the course material below. This would lead to a very wide and "zoomed out" sequence diagram and hinders the reader.

2. We find Prof's suggestion of using a fictitious method to be clearer to the reader. We also clearly specified that the second sequence diagram is the description of the fictitious method.

Therefore we believe that within the context of v1.4, this is not in scope.

Duplicate status (if any):

--