nus-pe-bot
commented
2 years ago Team's Response
No details provided by team.
The 'Original' Bug
[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]
Minor formatting bug 2
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.
There could have been spaces between points. It looks a little scary on first sight!
[original: nus-cs2103-AY2122S1/pe-interim#5865] [original labels: severity.VeryLow type.DocumentationBug]
Their Response to the 'Original' Bug
[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]
All of the details are provided accurately. It does not result in misinformation. Spaces between points could be a suggestion for the future however it is not a bug to be penalised for.
According to the website, this is not considered a documentation bug.
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)
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I believe that the team has overlooked the guidelines for bug triaging mentioned in the website. They haven't provided any proof/justification as to why the bugs should be considered duplicates. Here is the definition of duplicate bugs according to the website:
Just because two bugs are of the same type doesn't automatically imply that they are duplicate bugs.
In the team's case, there are multiple buggy behaviours that are cased by the same defect but they can be fixed independently.
Therefore, the bugs are not counted as duplicates.
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: The team has once again overlooked some of the potential UG bugs that are mentioned in the website.
Three of the possible UG bugs mentioned in the website as potential bugs (that come under neatness) are 'looks messy', 'not well-formatted' and 'hard to read/understand'. Clearly the bugs identified above fall into all these three categories.
The team could have formatted it better by adding spaces between points to avoid clutter and enhance readability.
Here is the proof of all the possible UG bugs that could be identified:
Therefore, the two bugs identified above are classified as non-duplicate bugs with very low severity.
Moreover, the bugs fit well with the definition of bugs with very low severity according to the website:
There could have been a line spacing after every point to improve readability.