DG Planned Enhancements feature 3 has multiple features

[LeeZeHao]

Steps to reproduce: Browse DG Planned enhancements

Expected: Contains 1 planned enhancement related to current feature

Actual:

Mentions:

• addlesson allow date and time scheduling
• display a timetable, which is an entirely new feature with many design details listed

This is too many changes for one planned enhancement.

[nus-se-script]

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Planned enhancement of lesson feature

After adding a lesson, there are no updates to GUI and I am unable to see the lesson. So I am wondering, what's the point of the session as I am unable to use it in any meaningful way. I checked the planned enhancements section and I found this:

"3. Timetable Function for Adding Lessons Enhance the addLesson feature to allow date and time scheduling, and display a timetable when a person is viewed. The timetable would be updated with lessons scheduled, enabling users to view available slots and assign lessons to specific times, ensuring efficient use of tutorsʼ and tuteesʼ time. The timetable could also display conflicts or availability to simplify the scheduling process and avoid overlaps."

Firstly, the timetable function is a new feature altogether. Referencing the CS2103t website, "Each enhancement should be a tweak to an existing feature, and should not be a new feature altogether.". Secondly, this is more than one enhancement.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2425S1/pe-interim#898] [original labels: severity.Medium type.DocumentationBug]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thank you for the bug. You make a fair point. However, this issue does not affect usage of the app at all.

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)

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Low`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** It is indeed a duplication of the other issue.   However, while it is a relatively mild error that will not affect many users / readers, I believe this cannot be counted as `Severity.VeryLow` as it is not just a cosmetic bug, but an error in writing / listing the planned enhancements. Therefore I still think the `Severity.Low` label is appropriate. 

---