search

C5hives / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Undo Command's scope can be misleading #5

Open C5hives opened 1 week ago

C5hives commented 1 week ago

The UG mentions that "The undo feature only tracks commands that modifies the address book", but the phrase "modifies the address book" is slightly ambiguous.

As per the UG, commands tracked by undo are not exhaustively listed: image.png

Intuitively, commands like addnote work, but commands like toggle technically also modify the address book (specifically, the appearance of the address book), but undo does not track this command.

I think the original intention was to specify that commands that modify address book DATA are tracked by undo. If so, this is just an issue of phrasing in the UG.

nus-pe-script commented 5 days ago

Team's Response

It is the same as issue #262, as in that issue it also mentions that the description of the undo command can be more informative.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

Misleading words for "that modifies the address book" UG page 17

image.png

Description of problem / ways to improve:

  • pin and unpin does not seem to change the contact details or change any information regarding the addressbook.
  • perhaps you may want to instead write specifically what actions command will actually work on.
  • "The undo feature only tracks the following commands: add, edit ..."

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2425S1/pe-interim#371] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

Decision of Bug Type

We believe that the tester is correct that it is a documentation bug.

Decision of Severity

The severity is also correct since we feel it causes minor inconvenience.

Decision for Response

We will accept the documentation bug as we feel that it can be improved to be more informative on what is affected by the undo function.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]