Different Error Messages for the same Error

[Mohammed-Faizzzz]

The following commands: deleteappt -1 and deleteappt 10 are both the same errors in that both try to access indices not in the list. However, the error messages are slightly different. The error message for the first command was: Invalid command format! Usage: deleteappt <index> Whereas that of the second command was The customer index provided is invalid. Ideally, both should be the same.

[soc-se-bot]

Team's Response

Hi, for justification on why this is a duplicate issue, even though these are different commands, these flaws will be fixed at once if we were to fix the "original" flaw. This is because the handling of parsing indices are done in one common method that is called by different commands, hence they cannot be fixed individually(i.e. if we fixed the parsing in the delete command, it would fix the parsing in delete command too).

The 'Original' Bug

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

Different Error Messages for same Error

The following commands: delete -1 and delete 10 are both the same errors in that both try to access indices not in the list. However, the error messages are slightly different. The error message for the first command was: Invalid command format! Usage: delete <index> Whereas that of the second command was The customer index provided is invalid. Ideally, both should be the same.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#5063] [original labels: severity.Low type.FeatureFlaw]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Hi there, thank you for bringing up this issue.

Our response are as follows:

• We agree that this is a feature flaw, which is a consensus among all duplicate bugs, and hence we are not further elaborating on why this is a feature flaw.
• We think that this is a severity.Low feature flaw, and since one of the bug reports specified this as severity.Medium, we are going to provide more elaboration on why we think this is severity.Low.
  • Firstly, this feature flaw does not affect the normal operation of the application, that is, even though the error message could be more specific, the user is likely to be able to realise what is wrong based on the current error message(i.e. it is not very hard to realise that the index provided is not in the displayed list, especially since the index is a negative number, which should have appeared at the top of the displayed list)
  • Secondly, as a normal user, when choosing the index of the customer you target, using a negative number is quite unlikely to happen.

However, we do think that this feature flaw is not in scope, due to the following reasons:

• The modification required to fix this is non-trivial, in order to fix this in a proper way (i.e. not just abusing the use of throwing exceptions), it would require re-designing the Index class to accept negative numbers, while modifying the parsing of indices too.
• We think that rather than putting in more time and effort into fixing this feature flaw in this iteration, the time spent on implementing and delivering other features is more important, as this flaw only causes minor inconvenience to users.

On top of that, we specified that the restriction of index to be accepted as a valid index in the UG, proving that we are aware of this feature flaw(hence qualifying it to be classified as NotInScope)

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`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]

---