search

owx0130 / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

certain expected output cannot be seen on UG #17

Open owx0130 opened 3 months ago

owx0130 commented 3 months ago

image.png

this is an example of some expected outputs being cut off. this can leave users confused as to what they are supposed to expect when using the application

nus-pe-bot commented 2 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]

Example usage cut off in page 8 of UG

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

In page 8 of the UG, the example output is cut off.

[original: nus-cs2113-AY2324S2/pe-interim#1841] [original labels: type.DocumentationBug severity.VeryLow]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Though it has a cut off in the line, the website looks fine, which means if users would like to see the actual result, they may refer to the online version of the UG. The user could also scroll to the right, as evident from the scroll bar in their pdf viewer.

image.png

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: [replace this with your explanation]

## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.NotInScope`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** i disagree with the not in scope classification, as I feel that this is a valid documentation bug of the UG. by definition from the CS2113 website: ![image.png](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/owx0130/pe/main/files/c400cbc4-d878-4574-8630-bc955e5718f7.png) it is outlined that the PDF version of the UG should be usable by the reader, and that it should not hinder them. in this case however, I feel that the UG hinders the user enough to classify as a documentation bug. additionally, with reference to the definition of the not in scope response: ![image.png](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/owx0130/pe/main/files/64b44df4-ee7e-4798-bbf5-590810133586.png) the team did not specify that this bug was going to be fixed in a later version in their UG (second pointer is not relevant to UG), which I feel gives enough justification that this should not be classified as not in scope.
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Low`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** i disagree that the bug is of severity very low. by definition from the website: ![image.png](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/owx0130/pe/main/files/56a2fe73-9559-412b-ac2d-0d06df8c60f4.png) a very low severity bug should not affect the user's usage of the UG. however, in this case the user is unaware of the expected output that they should be seeing when they run the commands, which in my opinion makes the UG less useful for them. as such, I believe the severity level should be low for this documentation bug