DG Sequence Diagram (FindTask) about pe

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

We thank you for the astute observation, and for the provided suggestion. However, the COMMAND_SUCCESS should not be taken at face value.

Even if you tried to match the variables to what is actually being utilized within our code, we simply meant to communicate the fact that the current scenario being displayed is a successful one compared to our other variables, MESSAGE_TASK_FOUND_S,MESSAGE_TASK_FOUND_P, and MESSAGE_NO_TASK_FOUND, COMMAND_SUCCESS is way more concise, encapsulating the meaning of a successful return message, and captures the brevity that is expected of UML models. To add multiple verbose variable names would not be realistic of an ideal UML. Thus, this would not hinder the comprehension of DG at all.

Given that the spirit of UML is meant to be as concise as possible, we also chose to show this scenario as we would not want to show the developers how a wrong scenario plays out within the UML.

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Agree with you that UML is to be as concise and it makes the most sense to show how a correct/expected scenario plays.

However, I think my last line of the bug report may still stand? i.e. "I think maybe to illustrate a successful command call, the team could provide an example, i.e. execute("findt slides"), instead of using execute(commandText)." By doing so, this will help you to "communicate the fact that the current scenario being displayed is a successful one" (quoted from your reply).

Also, sequence diagrams model the interactions between various entities in a system, in a specific scenario, hence, I think it is necessary to provide the example.

---