DG: Cross missing at the end of the d:DeleteCommand object's activation bar

[wang-xinrong]

In DG: Cross missing at the end of the d:DeleteCommand object's activation bar as it should be ready to be garbage-collected after its execution.

[nus-pe-script]

Team's Response

As explained in detail in this link, the cross is not vital to the purpose of the diagram (which is actually to showcase the execution of the execute("delstu nn/E1234567")), and hence is okay to be omitted.

Showing the deletion of the DeleteCommand is not important when showing the execution flow.

We put this as not in scope, as it could be there, but isn't necessary for the purposes of this diagram.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: I stick to my original argument of this bug being very low or would even consider raising the severity to low for the reasons below:

• If the cross is to be considered an optional element, the team should have been consistent with the decision to omit the cross instead of having a cross for DeleteCommandParser but not for DeleteCommand when in fact both are discarded after their first usage. This inconsistency might be interpreted by the user as different behaviour of those two classes after their initial usage, which is incorrect according to the source code.

• The first point was on the diagram can mislead the reader into thinking the two classes have different behaviours after usage. This point would be about how the cross is important in pointing out the correct behaviour of the model in handling the used DeleteCommand. The result of the command is saved in CommandResult and the DeleteCommand is no longer used. It is important to mark DeleteCommand object being garbage collection ready after its execution to portray the code structure accurately.

Given the potential of misleading the reader and inaccuracy in reflecting the model, I insist on this bug being a documentationBug of very low severity (since it is likely just a genuine mistake than an intentional omission, thus an error)

---