search

twothicc / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Inconsistent terminology or formatting used: addressbook vs address book - [DG] #12

Open twothicc opened 2 years ago

twothicc commented 2 years ago

image.png

address book used as shown above.

image.png

AddressBook used here

I assume that you intend for AddressBook as used here to refer to a class, but that would mean that your text formatting used here is wrong as it is clearly seen that other classes when referred to in the text are wrapped in a code block.

image.png

nus-se-script 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]

implementation - undo with outdated information

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.

AddressBook has been renamed. same issue in other parts of the section

Screenshot 2021-11-12 at 5.32.05 PM.png

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2122S1/pe-interim#4848] [original labels: severity.Medium type.DocumentationBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

No details provided by team.

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: My issue is stating that the text formatting used here is inconsistent.

The other issue claims that you are using outdated class names.

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: Clearly there's a difference in your use of address book and AddressBook, with the latter likely referring to the class AddressBook itself.

When you referred to other classes, I noticed that you chose to use the code block to highlight it, yet for AddressBook, you did not use the code block.

This can cause confusion to a developer trying to understand your proposed implementation details.

Therefore, I believe the issue should be accepted.

:question: Issue severity

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

Reason for disagreement: Since this issue comes from your proposed implementation of the undo feature and given that the issue is just a mere text formatting mistake, I believe that it would only cause a minor inconvenience to readers of your DG who bothers to read about the proposed implementation.

Therefore, I think the severity should be Low.