nus-pe-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
General response: The given diagrams above show the different implementation of the different features for developers. It is our responsibility to ensure that our product is explained as clearly as possible for our future batches of developers.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Thank you for your response, but I disagree with the rejection.
Firstly, the testers claim that It is our responsibility to ensure that our product is explained as clearly as possible for our future batches of developers. I agree with this statement, but this does not mean that we should copy the same full diagram over and over. This does not add much value to the reader. Instead, we should just show the relevant parts (how command interacts with model), and omit unnecessary parts of the diagram that may be repetitive, in this case the section on how the command is parsed (since it's the same for all commands). Doing this will make it easier for the reader to follow, whilst still maintaining clarity of the explanation.
I would agree that it would be petty to call this a bug if it was just repeated one or two times, but in total this diagram (only counting those that start from logic manager and end with model) was repeated 12 times in your DG, once for each of the commands and their variants. To make things worse, some of the diagrams were small and almost unreadable. For example, this diagram at 100% zoom.
It would have been much clearer for the user if the parsing section was removed, as readers have already seen it many times already and it is the same for all commands.
Lastly, with reference to this issue, in response to missing out on adding the sequence diagrams for one of the features (since they added for the rest), the team themselves seem to suggest that they understand that the sequence diagrams may be unnecessarily repetitive.
In the sequence diagram for add implementation (and other diagrams in same section) (shown above) and the sequence diagram for logic component (shown below), the two diagrams are almost identical. This seems very repetitive. It would have been better to just focus on the differences since how the command is parsed is already explained in Logic component section above. In addition, each section in implementation explains how the command is parsed. This has already been explained in the logic section and was very repetitive.