GlendaChong / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

item_index field: error message is not useful #8

Open GlendaChong opened 1 year ago

GlendaChong commented 1 year ago

Error message does not tell me why the item index is invalid. However, this is very important, as there are many reasons why the item index is invalid, and it affects many users, even if they don't input a very large index.

Screenshot 2023-11-17 at 4.34.37 PM.png

nus-se-script commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

We agree that the message can be more specific, but this issue should be of a low severity.

The 'Original' Bug

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

stall_index field: Error message is not useful

Screenshot 2023-11-17 at 4.21.48 PM.png

The error message does not tell the user why the index provided is invalid. Should provide a reason, that it's because the index is out of bounds, or greater than the number of stalls in teh list.


[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#5320] [original labels: type.FeatureFlaw severity.Medium]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

We agree that the message can be more specific, but this issue should be of a low severity.

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: According to the definition of duplicates,

(b) Multiple buggy behaviors that are actually caused by the same defect and cannot be fixed independently (i.e., fixing one fixes the others automatically).

The dev team has marked this bug, which is the error message of the item_index field, as a duplicate of the error message of the stall_index field. However, according to the implementation of the invalid index messages for both fields, these errors cannot be fixed independently.

image.png

In order to fix the error messages for both fields, lines 20 and 21 must be fixed for the stall_index and item_index fields respectively. This means that fixing only one line, will not fix the error message of the other line automatically, based on the team's implementation. As such, these 2 issues should not be considered as duplicates.

Furthermore, there were no justifications provided as to why they believe that this bug was a duplicate.

The following forum issues are also several justifications to support my disagreement:


## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]