search

pzl111 / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Command history feature was not mentioned in UG #33

Open pzl111 opened 10 months ago

pzl111 commented 10 months ago

For people with only the UG, which serves to help the user to use the app fully, it does not mention anywhere about this feature. Hence I genuinely did not know such a feature existed until I saw the DG. It is not in the UG summary nor table of contents, nor general utility features

image.png

soc-pe-bot commented 9 months ago

Team's Response

In our User Guide, we mentioned to view the Developer Guide for more information, as our User Guide is meant for a brief reference.

telegram-cloud-photo-size-5-6253483417203228388-y.jpg

We mentioned this feature in the Developer Guide, as we believe that this command history feature would be more useful for developers while testing the application. It is also not necessary for the UG to contain every detail, as mentioned here:

telegram-cloud-photo-size-5-6253483417203228389-y.jpg

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: I find that the UG including all other features but not this as rather forgetting to write about this feature that is covered by saying it is "still mentioned in DG" so it is fine. This DG should be used to provide further explanations to features for developers to understand them better, not to "discover" new features. User Guide being a brief reference should give brief summary of features, not the complete omission of a feature.

The command history is not a "nitty-gritty" feature that is insignificant to be left out the UG. It is an extremely useful feature for user efficiency and UX. Imagine the user having to type new transactions multiple times, which are long commands. For someone who wants to input transactions during the same day, imagine if the user can just press "up" to get the previous transaction and just change the description. It's use is very applicable to normal users than just developers. It would definitely be a huge time saver than typing the entire long command out, hence I don't see it as a "nitty-gritty" feature that is insignificant to be left out the UG.

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** Taken from the textbook: ![image.png](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pzl111/pe/main/files/8d3a3a28-54bc-4eaf-a0c0-302f07f8b410.png) Severity low is only during "very rare situations". Suppose I end my day and want to track all the transactions I had. I could key in the first transaction, press "up" to retrieve previous commands and simply edit the description and cost, saving me a lot of time for the many transactions I had for the day. Is doing this a "very rare situation"? I don't think so right, tracking transactions at the end of the day sounds like a perfectly normal daily task that is not "very rare". It is also a definite inconvenience, that is not "minor". Imagine you had a bunch of transactions with the friends you had for lunch, grocery shopping, running errands. You rack up say 20 transactions, which is reasonable. Can you imagine typing the command which is mostly similar, 20 times? rather than editing minor changes in the same command. Would this be "minor" to type it so many times which has a lot of time potentially saved?