nus-se-script
commented
1 year ago Team's Response
"Nitty-gritty details missing from the UG is not a bug long as the user is informed of those details using other means such as error messages or in-app help."
Missing details from UG ("using the plan or taken command") but user is informed that taken command is also accepted through in-app message (successfully accepted command).
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: The problem at hand is not that there are details missing from the UG, but rather that an explicitly stated requirement in the UG is not being adhered to by the program. As can be observed from my initial statement, I was able to execute a "mark" command without having done the "plan" command first.
The UG indicates: "Module must already have been added to the planner using plan command"
The program's documentation explicitly states that the module must have already been added to the planner using the "plan" command before the "mark" command can be used. The use of the word "must" in the documentation is a strong indication that this is a strict requirement, yet I was still able to use the "mark" command even though the module was not planned, but only taken. The aforementioned inconsistency is why I have marked this as a documentation bug.
As can be seen from the command, I have only don't taken cs1010 and did not ever do plan even before doing a taken cs1010 command, yet I can still do a mark command, when the documentation says that "Module must already have been added to the planner using plan command"