search

GeNiaaz / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Edited persons to the same phone number #15

Open GeNiaaz opened 3 years ago

GeNiaaz commented 3 years ago

I was able to edit person 2 to have the same phone number as person 1:

image.png

This should not be allowed and can create confusion.

nus-se-bot commented 3 years ago

Team's Response

Firstly, this is inherited behaviour from Addressbook. Addressbook allows persons to share the same email if they do not have the same name.

In addition, it is clearly described in the features section of the user guide that VirusTracker flags duplicates which occurs if both persons have the same name and same email. This is not the case in the example shown, since both persons have different names.

A case can easily be made to justify why people should be allowed to share the same email. Young dependents of an adult whom do not have an email (e.g. young children and babies), should be allowed to share emails from their parents.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: Firstly, in your reasoning you mentioned email while my issue was on phone numbers. I am going to assume for the rest of my reponse that it was a typo on your part becase in the userguide it stated that duplicates are flagged when name an phone are the same.

2 persons cannot have the same phone number, unless they are dependents I agree. However an additional mechanism should be in place here to suggest a person is a child / ward of a guardian. Such would make for staff to know the name of the guardian they are contacting, and even to contact the other parent / guardian should the one stated not be contactable.

Additionally, if such a mechanism is present, accidentally typing in an identical phone number would also trigger a warning to the user, and would reduce chances of incorrectly inputting incorrect that correspond to one person. This would reduce confusion when the staff is trying to contact these people and they have potentially the same number due to a clerical error.

:question: Issue type

Team chose [type.FeatureFlaw] Originally [type.FunctionalityBug]

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.VeryLow] Originally [severity.High]

Reason for disagreement: Taking into account the reasoning offered, I would like to downgrade to a medium as it may not pose a significant issue initially and would be a stopgap solution for having children take on their guardians' contact details. But I still maintain that this is an issue that has to be tackled quickly and soon for the reasons I stated above, before the program is scaled up and where such regressions would be much harder to solve.