search

Airiinnn / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

`edit` allows empty value #8

Open Airiinnn opened 2 weeks ago

Airiinnn commented 2 weeks ago

edit allows empty value for role/ field, leading to the user not having any role. It was explicityly mentioned in the UG that role must be either caregiver or patient or both.

Expected / Suggestions

Commands / Screenshots to reproduce

edit S6483749D role/

image.png

image.png

nus-se-bot commented 2 weeks ago

Team's Response

This was mentioned in the Developer Guide Planned Enhancement point number 8. Screenshot 2024-11-17 at 2.08.27 PM.png

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: Planned Enhancements are for feature flaws as stated below:

telegram-cloud-photo-size-5-6186159117643662013-y.jpg

Since the feature is not working as intended, I believe this constitutes as a functionality flaw and should not be covered by the planned enhancement and consequently rejected.

Furthermore, it is stated under feature freeze that validaity check is allowed if current behavior causes the software to misbehave, which is applicable in this case as it violates the rule that role must be either patient, caregiver or both.

image.png

Justification

Response should not be rejected

The UG explicitly states that "Each person must have the role of PATIENT, CAREGIVER, or both." The edit command clearly enables the user to violate this rule by allowing users to set an empty role.

image.png

Given the definition of issue types, this constitues as a functionality that does not work as specified/expected, and not some missing functionality.

image.png

Furthermore, it seems like a stretch to argue that allowing empty role is indeed an intended feature.

The edit command in UG does not explain the intended behavior, while the format error message in the app for edit and the fact that we can use the field to alter roles in the edit command.

image.png

Since the intended behavior of this command is not specified, we go by the reasonable "correct" behavior that one expects. A reasonable user, seeing that it was stated that role must be either 1 or both above in the UG, would rightfully assume that edit should not allow empty role/.

image.png

It also does not make sense for edit to behave different than add when it comes to the role. Eg. It would not make sense for add to enforce unique phone numbers, but edit allows duplicate.

Hence, why it is more than likely functionality flaw than feature or documentation. It should not be covered by planned enhancement and consequently rejected.