search

wang-xinrong / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Behaviour of command mark nn/E1234567 wk/1 wk/2 wk/3 not specified #6

Open wang-xinrong opened 6 months ago

wang-xinrong commented 6 months ago

command mark nn/E1234567 wk/1 wk/2 wk/3 has the same effect as command mark nn/E1234567 wk/3

but this is not specified in the UG where only the last "wk/" flag will be registered.

soc-pe-bot commented 6 months ago

Team's Response

This is a functionality bug, and not a documentation bug. The lack of documentation of a bug is not a documentation bug, because of the nature of bugs. Otherwise, a tester could just mark all their bugs as documentation bugs to bypass PE rules.

The definition of a functionality bug: A functionality does not work as specified. We did not specify it in our documentation so this is a functionality bug.

This bug is also already addressed in Planned Enhancements:

image.png

By PE rules, this issue is rejected. image

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FunctionalityBug`] Originally [`type.DocumentationBug`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** Reason for Disagreement: The tester was making the assumption that the dev team is aware of this bug, and such an implementation is intended (as evident in the team pointing this bug out in the future enhancement.) Thus the tester was led to believe the feature worked as intended by the team (taking in the last parameter) and the team merely forgot to include it in the UG, making this bug a documentation bug. In this case, the dev team should have pointed out this behaviour in the UG since it is not uncommon for the user to provide multiple flags. And they should be informed of the actual behaviour of the product instead of being misled into thinking this is a bug overlooked by the team. Thus I insist on this bug being a documentation one.