Mark feature behavior does not match the user guide

[DesmondTo]

Step to reproduce:

1. Enter the command: mark -n Candice da/

Expected:

As shown in the screenshot, no date will mark the absence period to be the next 7 days

Actual:

Not marked. Error message displayed.

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

No date input means no date prefix attached. In this case a date input of an incorrect format was provided. It is not considered no date, but a wrong date period entered.

As mentioned here, this is a flag input, and the date is expected, however the flag input provided did not have the appropriate date attached, it is not considered no date input.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement:

Then, it is still a valid bug, since you can just say No date input means no date prefix attached. Putting 0, 1, or 2 date inputs can confuse the reader as 1 or 2 date inputs requires da/ flag, it will be natural for the reader to think that 0 date input requires da/ flag as well. However, I agree that severity should be low as it actually works for no date.

---

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.Low] Originally [severity.Medium]

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---