Activity diagram for Contain Contacts in Meeting Feature have parallel paths

[sudarshan2401]

The activity diagrams for this section all seem to have parallel paths but the implementation of the features do not seem to actually have these checks happening in parallel.

E.g

The description mentions first checking one field and then the other, which is not an example of a parallel path in the diagram.

[soc-pe-bot]

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

DG: Wrong notations in activity diagrams

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.

---

Problems:

• first, the branch conditions should be written outside the diamond instead of inside it per course instruction
• second, the parallel execution notation is wrongly used. There is no parallelism in this application and instead should be converted to a series of branch conditions

The problem exists for all the activity diagrams in the DG.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#4878] [original labels: type.DocumentationBug severity.Medium]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

I acknowledge the two points mentioned.

For point 1, I agree that according to the module syllabus the branch conditions should be written outside the diamond. But in the industry my representation is also sometimes acceptable. Consider this guide for constructing activity diagrams in plantUML:

https://plantuml.com/activity-diagram-beta

For point 2, you are correct that my parallel execution notation is wrongly used. Using the parallel bars indeed meant that all 3 paths must be executed and not one of the 3 path is to be executed. Considering that the information conveyed is simplistic and apparent in nature, hindrance to the reader is minimal.

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 severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** I disagree that the issue is of low severity as it definitely would cause confusion to new developers who would assume that this application uses multithreading/parallel programming in order to carry out this specific command due to the activity diagram. That would mean that it would cause more than a `minor inconvenience`. The response, "information conveyed is simplistic and apparent in nature, hindrance to the reader is minimal" this is an assumption that is being made, and the activity diagram makes it apparent that the command implementation uses parallel flows. As such, this issue should be of Medium severity.

---