search

LouisLouis19 / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Unable to display expiring item in 7 days #6

Open LouisLouis19 opened 2 years ago

LouisLouis19 commented 2 years ago

Unable to list expiring item. I have an expiring item in 7 days, which is 19 November, today is 12 November. It is not displayed on the list Screenshot 2021-11-12 at 4.34.14 PM.png

nus-pe-script commented 2 years ago

Team's Response

Thank you for your feedback.

We have flagged this as a duplicate of #1521.

We marked this as rejected for the following reasons:

We hope you understand and accept our decision to reject the issue.

The 'Original' Bug

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

expiring only shows expiring items within 6 days

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.

image.png

image.png

image.png

[original: nus-cs2113-AY2122S1/pe-interim#1484] [original labels: severity.VeryLow type.DocumentationBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thank you for your bug report.

The item is not deemed to be expiring within 7 days as "within" does not include the seventh day. We would otherwise have input it as "within 7 days inclusive of the seventh day."

Thus, this behavior of the program is running as expected.

We hope you understand and accept our decision to reject this issue.

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]

Reason for disagreement: Thank you for the response! Upon reading your explanation, I realized that it is a simple ambiguity in the user guide, instead of a functionality bug. However, I believe that the language chosen to explain this feature could be improved.

As for the definition of "within 7 days", I believe it is understood differently between the developer and tester. Referring to this discussion on the wording: (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/63305/does-the-term-within-7-days-mean-include-the-7th-day#:~:text=If%20I%20ask%20to%20have,counting%20today%20as%20day%200.)

It says that if today is 12 Nov, "within 7 days" means that the product is set to expire on day 7, counting today as day 0. Day 0: 12 Nov Day 1: 13 Nov Day 2: 14 Nov Day 3: 15 Nov Day 4: 16 Nov Day 5: 17 Nov Day 6: 18 Nov Day 7: 19 Nov Therefore, 19 Nov, as per the example, should be expiring within 7 days.

I would consider the wording in the user guide to be ambiguous, which causes an inconvenience for users who understood the phrase differently. Hence, I believe that this is a low severity documentation bug.

:question: Issue type

Team chose [type.DocumentationBug] Originally [type.FunctionalityBug]

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.VeryLow] Originally [severity.Medium]

Reason for disagreement: Thank you for the response! Upon reading your explanation, I realized that it is a simple ambiguity in the user guide, instead of a functionality bug. However, I believe that the language chosen to explain this feature could be improved.

As for the definition of "within 7 days", I believe it is understood differently between the developer and tester. Referring to this discussion on the wording: (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/63305/does-the-term-within-7-days-mean-include-the-7th-day#:~:text=If%20I%20ask%20to%20have,counting%20today%20as%20day%200.)

It says that if today is 12 Nov, "within 7 days" means that the product is set to expire on day 7, counting today as day 0. Day 0: 12 Nov Day 1: 13 Nov Day 2: 14 Nov Day 3: 15 Nov Day 4: 16 Nov Day 5: 17 Nov Day 6: 18 Nov Day 7: 19 Nov Therefore, 19 Nov, as per the example, should be expiring within 7 days.

I would consider the wording in the user guide to be ambiguous, which causes an inconvenience for users who understood the phrase differently. Hence, I believe that this is a low severity documentation bug.