nus-pe-bot
commented
10 months ago Team's Response
The format is a general one for Person (both Doctor and Patient) and hence we have adjusted the general command format to be for both. The onus is on the user to adhere to the requirements based on the subtype of Person being edited, especially since there is a segment below to explain the addition constraints when editing a patient. We cannot simply adjust the command format to have [t/TAGS] without the ... since it will become invalid for patients that can only have one tag. Furthermore, the fact that no Patient-specific fields such as ec/ or b/ are present implies that the person being edited is the doctor - who can actually take multiple tags.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: As a general format for both doctors and patients, I would expect the given parameters to work for both doctors and patients, especially when all other parameters given NRIC [n/NAME] [p/PHONE] [e/EMAIL] [a/ADDRESS] works for both doctors and patients. [t/TAG]… should not have been in the given general format. Alternatively, the team should have just wrote "Format for editing patients: ..." and "Format for editing doctors: ..." separately to avoid confusing the readers.
Furthermore, "Must edit appropriate fields based on whether the person is a patient or doctor" only highlights that the fields used can be different for doctors and patients but does not highlight the difference in the number of tags.
Furthermore, the fact that no Patient-specific fields such as ec/ or b/ are present implies that the person being edited is the doctor - who can actually take multiple tags.
The lack of patient-specific fields only implies to the user that they are not allowed to edit those fields.
Wrongly documented in UG that multiple tags can be accepted, which is misleading