Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Add command (Attempt to add a person being denied)

Description

When attempting to add a contact, I get the error message "Person already exists in the address book", even though, there is no person named "Alvin"

Steps to reproduce

Add "John Doe" which is the example given when given by the application an invalid add command

Copy the command and change the name to Alvin (Error is shown even if you change all the fields)

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2425S1/pe-interim#1138] [original labels: severity.High type.FunctionalityBug]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Justification for low: In actual scenario, unlikely that you will have students that have the same phone number or same email, or same class and register number.

Justification for feature flaw: According to guidelines, the error message provided is correct, however, we do admit that there could be more specifics provided regarding the error.

Justification for not in scope: The work done to the implement the feature for duplicate checking was more important than fixing this minor bug. Moreover, the system fails gracefully. (i.e. the system does not crash) However, we do acknowledge that the error message could be improved in future iterations to provide specifics as to why the provided student input is a duplicate.

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 response Team chose [`response.NotInScope`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** First of all, in your Non-Functional-Requirements you guys claim to “ Should be able to hold up to 1000 persons without a noticeable sluggishness in performance for typical usage “, so I shall use a scenario where there is 1000 person records. 1) “In actual scenario, unlikely that you will have students that have the same phone number or same email, or same class and register number.” I believe this is only one of the possible causes. What if i wrote the email/class/registernumber/phone number wrongly which results in me accidentally trying to write a duplicate field? This is especially so since register number + class is only 2 character/digits long. 2)Given there is 1000 person records, it is extremely difficult for me to single out which existing student has the same fields as the student i’m trying to “add” into the CLI. It is also difficult for me to remember which fields' values are already existing, if you do not tell me at all. The only way i can think of to solve this is to run multiple/ a pretty long filter command for the multiple different fields to attempt trial and error to check which fields have i duplicated accidentally.This creates extra work for trying to add a single person which defeats the purpose of a efficient typing CLI app. Imagine scaling up to 1000 person, management will be exponentially harder and creates a noticeable sluggishness in terms of using the app. Adding a person is the most important entry point of the CLI app and is likely one of the most used commands. You have to ADD someone before u can even start using any other features in the application. If the first step is already flawed, it makes it harder for me to continue and use other features. So i believe this creates a lot of inconvenience and is definitely not a “NotInScope” and is more than just a “low” severity

## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FeatureFlaw`] Originally [`type.FunctionalityBug`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** Argument for functionality bug -> I expected to be able to add a person in but i couldn’t, as the unclear error message isn’t telling me why, so i’m stuck without knowing exactly how to proceed

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.High`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** First of all, in your Non-Functional-Requirements you guys claim to “ Should be able to hold up to 1000 persons without a noticeable sluggishness in performance for typical usage “, so I shall use a scenario where there is 1000 person records. 1) “In actual scenario, unlikely that you will have students that have the same phone number or same email, or same class and register number.” I believe this is only one of the possible causes. What if i wrote the email/class/registernumber/phone number wrongly which results in me accidentally trying to write a duplicate field? This is especially so since register number + class is only 2 character/digits long. 2)Given there is 1000 person records, it is extremely difficult for me to single out which existing student has the same fields as the student i’m trying to “add” into the CLI. It is also difficult for me to remember which fields' values are already existing, if you do not tell me at all. The only way i can think of to solve this is to run multiple/ a pretty long filter command for the multiple different fields to attempt trial and error to check which fields have i duplicated accidentally.This creates extra work for trying to add a single person which defeats the purpose of a efficient typing CLI app. Imagine scaling up to 1000 person, management will be exponentially harder and creates a noticeable sluggishness in terms of using the app. Adding a person is the most important entry point of the CLI app and is likely one of the most used commands. You have to ADD someone before u can even start using any other features in the application. If the first step is already flawed, it makes it harder for me to continue and use other features. So i believe this creates a lot of inconvenience and is definitely not a “NotInScope” and is more than just a “low” severity

LingZiyann / pe

Add person error message unclear #2

Team's Response

The 'Original' Bug

Add command (Attempt to add a person being denied)

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue duplicate status