search

theodorekwok / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Parser sequence diagram for addTag #27

Open theodorekwok opened 2 years ago

theodorekwok commented 2 years ago

ss11.PNG

The AddTagCommand method call shld be called in the addTagParse method not parseMaster()

Moreover AddTagCommand does not exist but its TagAddCommand

soc-se-bot commented 2 years ago

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Parser sequence diagram for adding calories wrong method call

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.

ss9.PNG From the code, it is setParse that calls the SetCaloriesCommand constructor method not parseMaster()

[original: nus-cs2113-AY2122S1/pe-interim#1842] [original labels: severity.Medium type.DocumentationBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

This is indeed a bug, however, this is a very low severity bug since SetCaloriesCommand is called from the :Parser class, and therefore doesn't affect the implementation of SetCaloriesCommand at all.

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)

Reason for disagreement: The original bug that the team marked this issue as duplicate is found on a different diagram. More specifically, the diagram I pointed out the error is here: ss1.PNG

The diagram I pointed out the issue does not have the SetCaloriesCommand method call and they are clearly in different diagrams different images.

From the website "However, errors across multiple diagrams should not be flagged as duplicates, unless it is the same diagram appearing in multiple places (i.e., the same image file used in multiple places)."

So I disagree with it being a duplicate.

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.VeryLow] Originally [severity.Medium]

Reason for disagreement: Severity.VeryLow are for purely cosmetic issues that hinder the reader. This error is non-cosmetic as it relates to the correctness of the UML diagram according to the UML conventions we have learned. So I disagree with the downgrading of the severity of issue.