nus-pe-bot
commented
11 months ago Team's Response
The users indeed have to filter to get the customer list. They have to request for a list that contains the customers they want to edit, in other words, filter the list of customers.
For example, if the customer list displayed does not contain the specific customer Adam, the user can either choose to list out all the existing customers in the list or search by the name Adam. Doesn't matter which approach is chosen, the action here is indeed filtering the customers (the customers have to meet the conditions in order to be displayed). The difference here is just the conditions we set for both approaches -
- listing out all customers - condition to meet: Is a customer
- searching by name
Adam- condition to meet: Name is "Adam"
Another example, if Adam is already displayed in the customer list. Yes, now the user does not have to request for a new list, but isn't that simply because the user has requested for a list with Adam being inside before? If not, why would Adam even appear? This implies that the user has either listed out all customers or searched for Adam. And now the user can just move on to Step 2 since he/she has already filtered the list before. In this case, we should not omit the fact that the user has actually completed Step 1. In other words, the user does not skip Step 1.
In a conclusion, the users have to first get the list of customers they want (by filtering) before editing their information. We think that Step 1 is necessary and should not be omitted. Hence we reject the bug.
Justification of low: Although we think that it is not a bug, if someone says that it is a bug, we think it should only be of low severity since the logic is quite clear to the reader: get a list of customers you want, then edit information. It would not hinder the reader from understanding the use case of editing a customer.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]
Step 1 is unnecessary as user does not need to filter customers before editing. If indices change, it should be given as a different use case.