nus-pe-bot
commented
1 week ago Team's Response
Thanks for the feedback! We have consulted the Professor, and he had recommended us to validate and maintain the accuracy of our course mappings in the program, hence we did not allow for custom mappings to be added into the personal tracker, and only allow for approved mappings (gathered from EduRec and mentioned in the DG) to be added. However, this could be a possible feature for future iterations as we understand that SoC and CEG students may have some new mappings in mind.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: The issue cannot be considered not in scope because it pertains to a fundamental feature of the application—mapping courses. The restriction against custom mappings directly impacts the app’s core functionality and target use cases. While the dev team claims this restriction is deliberate to maintain database accuracy, this design decision is neither clearly documented in the User Guide nor communicated to users effectively. The lack of transparency misleads users into assuming they can add custom mappings, causing frustration when the feature does not work as expected.
Moreover, handling custom mappings is not an enhancement but a core feature for the app’s intended audience. A large percentage of module mappings done by students involve custom or tentative mappings, and excluding this capability severely limits the app’s utility. The argument that the issue can be deferred to future iterations does not hold, as it directly impacts the functionality of the current version. This issue is well within scope and should be classified as a valid bug.
Not only that but just adding a flag to the mappings the user has selected to show which are pre-approved and which are not could have been a possible solution to the recommendation provided by prof instead of not allowing custom mappings at all.
Rectifying this is by far more important than the work already done and this is no low-priority feature, especially compared to features like the compare feature.
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.High`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** The inability to add custom mappings is a significant limitation that disrupts the core functionality of the application, especially for its primary audience of students mapping courses for the Student Exchange Program (SEP). This issue should be classified as severity.High because it renders the application much less useful for a large portion of its users who often rely on custom mappings not found in pre-approved lists. The failure to document the restriction well against adding custom mappings exacerbates the issue, as users reasonably assume this functionality should exist. Instead, it is included in the FAQs section. As such, encountering an "Invalid course mapping" error without clear guidance is not just a minor inconvenience but a major disruption to the expected workflow. Custom mappings are a critical use case for students who frequently deal with courses not yet recognized by EduRec or the app’s preloaded database. Without this capability, users are forced to rely on external tools or workarounds, which diminishes the app's value and purpose. Additionally, given that the app already handles course mappings, implementing a custom mapping feature would not require excessive effort, making the exclusion of this functionality even more problematic. The team’s argument that this can be a “future feature” neglects the fact that the current lack of this feature directly impacts the usability and utility of the application, justifying a High severity rating. Not only that but just adding a flag to the mappings the user has selected to show which are pre-approved and which are not could have been a possible solution to the recommendation provided by prof instead of not allowing custom mappings at all.
I tried to input the following course mapping but it kept rejecting me without telling me why it does so. The user guide does not state any restrictions on which courses can be mapped and if found a valid course i can map i would do the following to add it in. I tried multiple examples to get a mapping yet none worked. I even tried inputting an existing module both (nus and partner) and it did not work. It was not stated what the limits are and there is no specified formatting errors either. It is only stated in the UG under the FAQ section. It was not stated in the user guide that custom mappings cannot be added. It was not made clear and any user including me assumed it would be possible especially considering the very slim number of module mappings provided. Infact a large portion of module mapping done in SoC and by CEG students are actually custom.
Thanks!
Follow the following commands and the top of each image to replicate