nus-pe-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
Since the purpose of a sequence diagram is to show a high level overview of the command execution, there should not be a need to provide low level details, i.e. the sequence diagram provides all the relevant details. If we were to include extra explanations, it would also make the DG unnecessarily wordy. Hence, this issue is rejected.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I disagree with the rejection as I believe that a Developer's Guide should not only contain highlevel diagrams.
As mentioned in the introduction of VirusTracker Developer's Guide
The DG is targetted at developers who wish to maintain and expand on VirusTracker. With only a sequence diagram as an explanation to the code in the programme, details will inherently be missed out.
For the purpose of a DG to offer clarity to developers, more explanation should be included to avoid the need for developers to interpret the provided diagrams into the code on his or her own. Instead, the developers should read both the explanation and the diagram at the same time to understand the code.
In AB3, an explanation is provided before the sequence diagram.
Taking reference from DG page 24 - 28
It would be better if there was a write up on the methods and objects created.
eg.
LogicManager#parseCommand()provides the arguments for .... to..instead of providing a just highlevel overview and rationale of what the feature does.