search

Jolonauh / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

edit command: able to edit an entry's email to match another entry's email #8

Open Jolonauh opened 4 months ago

Jolonauh commented 4 months ago

image.png expected: no two entries should have the same email. So we should not be able to edit one entry's email to match another. actual: able to edit one entry's email to match another.

nus-se-script commented 4 months ago

Team's Response

This is a duplicate issue.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Add command functionality bug: same email can be used for different people.

image.png

expected behaviour: no two people can have the same email address. actual behaviour: able to add two people with the same email address.

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#1657] [original labels: type.FunctionalityBug severity.Low]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

This is an accepted behaviour, we did not specify in the User Guide that a Client must have a unique email. This is because some clients may share the same email (e.g. companies).

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: [replace this with your explanation]

## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.Rejected`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** I don't think it is common practice for people in companies to have only one email address that represents the whole company. Usually each employee will have their own business email that they use. Even if they had the same email, they would likely only have one person in the company dealing with all the orders. Therefore, I don't think that it is very likely for different entities to share the same email address when ordering. The possibility of adding different clients with the same email address also brings more danger to the clients than potential benefit. Consider this scenario: Client A - email correctly entered Client B - email incorrectly entered using Client A's email 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.
## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FunctionalityBug`] Originally [`type.FeatureFlaw`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]