nus-se-script
commented
7 months ago Team's Response
This is a duplicate of another issue. The following is our response to said issue:
Yes, our team considered whether or not to remove the existing undo/redo function proposed implementation. However, we initially decided to add it to our app, and later realized that there were a lot more important functions over this. We felt that the command history feature was sufficient enough to cater to fast typists, and an undo/redo function albeit useful, was of less priority than other functions. In the end, we still decided it was relevant and important, and left it in it the Developer Guide.
The 'Original' Bug
[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]
DG: Undo/redo feature not removed
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.
Problem:the undo/redo feature is a part of another software (AB3) and it never adapted/implemented according to your application. It should be deleted so as not to cause confusion to the developer reading the guide.
[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#4877] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]
Their Response to the 'Original' Bug
[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]
Yes, our team considered whether or not to remove the existing undo/redo function proposed implementation. However, we initially decided to add it to our app, and later realized that there were a lot more important functions over this. We felt that the command history feature was sufficient enough to cater to fast typists, and an undo/redo function albeit useful, was of less priority than other functions. In the end, we still decided it was relevant and important, and left it in it the Developer Guide.
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)
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.Rejected`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** I disagree that this issue should be rejected and should at most be "Out of Scope" as in your response you mentioned that `In the end, we still decided it was relevant and important, and left it in it the Developer Guide.` but there was no indication as to why it is relevant and/or important to your application especially since there is the implementation of the command history feature that "was sufficient enough to cater to fast typists"
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Low`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** This issue is not a cosmetic problem and as such should not be Very Low. `A flaw that is purely cosmetic and does not affect usage e.g., a typo/spacing/layout/color/font issues in the docs or the UI that doesn't affect usage. Only cosmetic problems should have this label.`
The Proposed Undo/redo feature in the DG seems to be unedited from AB3 and might be irrelevant to the current application.