Add command: able to add people with same phone no.

[Jolonauh]

expected behaviour: no to people should share the same phone no. actual behaviour: able to add two people with the same phone no.

[nus-se-bot]

Team's Response

This is an accepted behaviour, we did not specify in the User Guide that a Client must have a unique phone number. This is because some Clients may share the same phone number (e.g. company phone number, parent-child where the child is using the parent's phone number).

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: While I agree that companies may have centralised phone numbers, such as office landline phones, in practice, when ordering things, employees are more likely to use their personal phone number or office issued phone number to make the order so that seller can have a direct contact with someone in the company.

Regarding the situation where a child shares the same phone number as a parent, I think it is ridiculous to expect a child to be a client of a flower shop when they don't even have their own phone.

Therefore, I don't think that it is very likely for different entities to share the same phone numbers when ordering.

The possibility of adding different clients with the same phone number also brings more danger to the clients than potential benefit.

Consider this scenario: Client A - phone numbr correctly entered Client B - phone number incorrectly entered using Client A's number The florist decides to send confidential details to Client B. This would cause Client A to receive confidential information not intended for them, while Client B wouldn't even receive anything.

Therefore, I believe that this is enough reason for this behaviour to be considered a feature flaw bug.

---