Lack of clarity in DG completion class details

[ramapriyan912001]

Unclear whether Completion is an Enum or Class. Based on the highlights, one would assume that Completed and Uncompleted are classes or enums and not just strings. Lack of clarity here with regards to whether these fields are just strings or enums values.

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

Hi. We have read your review and we understand your concern.

We felt adding the type of completion entity would not be of much value and it does not hinder the reader in any way. Therefore, we decided to omit these unnecessary details. Similarly, for commands such as Accept and Delete where it is usually followed by a number (e.g. 2). We also did not specify whether the number is an integer, long, string, or character. Our group feels that this is unnecessary. Perhaps, you could refer to the screenshot below for examples of UG bugs that may hinder the reader.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: With all due respect, the picture shared is a non-exhaustive list of possible issues with regards to the DG. (Speaking of which, you have a typo in your response where you state UG bugs instead of DG bugs).

If you did not want to mention the details, you could have skipped this entirely. Instead you chose to describe the mechanism in quite low-level detail; in addition, the highlights mean that the terms are relevant to your code, however, it isn't apparent or clear whether the terms highlighted are enums or strings.

The team has flexibility to explain at what level of detail they so please; however, once they do select a level of detail, they ought to make their descriptions clear.

Had the team not opted to describe the working at such detail, it would have been fine to not make clear what the terms are. However, once they decided to go into such low-level detail, they have no excuse not to be clear in their explanation.

---