search

tyouwei / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Include details in Planned Enhancements section #10

Open tyouwei opened 11 months ago

tyouwei commented 11 months ago

Perhaps the team can include some UML diagrams to share with readers the proposed implementation of the planned enhancements. Kind of similar to how undo/redo proposed implementation section is.

Future developers reading the DG might be confused on how to develop the features the way your want them to.

nus-pe-bot commented 11 months ago

Team's Response

The requirements for the Planned Enhancements section on the course website only stated that it should describe the feature flaw and how the feature flaw would be changed, which was present in our Planned Enhancements. UML diagrams and proposed implementations were not required. We modelled our Planned Enhancements after the example shown at the bottom.

Our planned enhancements currently do not have proposed implementations that we want or require future developers to stick to. We welcome future developers to suggest any ideas and implement the enhancements in any way they deem fit, as long as it resolves the current feature flaw, and achieves the in the described result.

As such, we do not believe this is a valid documentation bug.

An example from the course website:

Screenshot 2023-11-20 at 1.25.07 PM.png

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: Regardless, it would still be very helpful to include implementation details in the planned enhancements section.

  1. It helps to communicate clear ideas and brainstorm implementation ideas in the SDLC Process.
  2. It allows the developing team to ensure that the Planned Enhancement section is not filled with unfeasible enhancements.

Anyone can write Planned Enhancements easily, but it takes a good Developer to fully understand the feasibility of a particular enhancement (while bearing in mind the software design that the project is currently sticking to). And in the real world, it is the job of the Developer Guide to help not-so-good developers in that regard.

I understand that this aspect isn't well reflected in the CS2103T website. As such, I believe it should not be rejected, it should be placed under "NotInScope".