nus-pe-script
commented
1 week ago Team's Response
We do agree that some users may want this functionality but for most users, this may cause them more inconvenience. For sessions with similar nature, there still needs to be a unique key to identify different sessions from one another. In a scenario where Member A attending training in week 1 and Member B training in week 2, and it would be confusing for the user if both sessions were just labelled as training and the user may think both members attended the same session. Thus, we decided on this implementation instead
One possible implementation would be to include the date as an identifier too but this will still encounter an issue if there are multiple sessions on the same day.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Since there is already a date identifier that is displayed beside the session name, I do not see it as necessary for the session names to be unique. The user would be able to differentiate the trainings by date as it is displayed beside the session name anyway. It would also not make sense as I said previously for the user to use an index for the trainings as an identifier as it would require them to keep track of the number of trainings. Some potential problems I see would be
- Readability eg. Training 23 23 Oct 2024, which may potentially cause confusion when reading the description, with how the UI for the session is designed
- If the user was unaware of a session that was conducted maybe due to absence or other commitments, he would have typed the index wrongly eg. training 43 instead of 44. Since there is no way to edit session names currently, this would just inconvenience the user more if he would have to delete and add sessions for all the members that attended. Redoing this whole process could also potentially cause even more mistakes if the user typed in the members' indexes attended wrongly This would be the case for most CCAs that have more than one leader keeping track of attendance and points
For the case that you mentioned it would definitely make sense to differentiate the sessions by name eg. training morning vs training evening.
However for the most part not allowing duplicate session names would cause more inconvenience to the user rather than helping them avoid confusion. Therefore I feel that this is still a FeatureFlaw and should not be response.NotInScope.
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** I think with the examples and reasoning I mentioned above, this instances would occur more often than not. Especially since most CCAs are recurring anyway. Since it causes inconvenience in not just rare occurrences, I feel it should at least warrant a `severity.Medium`.
Description
Case : Recurring CCA trainings eg. floorball training. Users are restricted to adding indices after each training even if the session is the same. This does not make sense for frequent recurring sessions and will be tedious to keep track of the number of trainings. This is not optimised for fast typers or hall CCA managers.