search

QY-H00 / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

The application accepts same phone number #5

Open QY-H00 opened 3 years ago

QY-H00 commented 3 years ago

Command Sequences: add -n John Doe -p 98765432 -e johnd@example.com -c Google -j Software Engineer -a 311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 -r University friend -t friends -t owesMoney add -n ALKK -p 98765432 -e johnd@example.com -c Google -j Software Engineer -a 311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 -r University friend -t friends -t owesMoney

Explaination: Commonly, the contact book should not accept two people with the same phone number.

Screenshot:

image.png

nus-pe-bot commented 3 years ago

Team's Response

This issue is not considered an issue by the team. Our application is targeted towards business contact management.

This means that multiple employees can share the same office numbers if the office only has one landline, and the call would then be forwarded internally.

Similarly, the address and email address of different persons from the same company can be the same company address and email address (especially when the company is small and share the same email address for public communication).

This "uniqueness" issue is a complex issue and enforcing it would mean restricting use cases like the one mentioned above. This is not in the scope of this module and thus marked as NotInScope.

The 'Original' Bug

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

add command bug: people with different name but same other fields are allowed

steps to produce:

  1. add -n John Doe -p 98765432 -e johnd@example.com -c Google -j Software Engineer -a 311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 -r University friend -t friends -t owesMoney

  2. add -n John Do -p 98765432 -e johnd@example.com -c Google -j Software Engineer -a 311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 -r University friend -t friends -t owesMoney

expected: warning saying, the two persons have the same phone number email address etc

actual: no warning is shown

Screenshot 2021-04-16 at 2.22.48 PM.png

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2021S2/pe-interim#127] [original labels: severity.Medium type.FunctionalityBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

This issue is not considered an issue by the team. Our application is targeted towards business contact management.

This means that multiple employees can share the same office numbers if the office only has one landline, and the call would then be forwarded internally.

Similarly, the address and email address of different persons from the same company can be the same company address and email address (especially when the company is small and share the same email address for public communication).

This "uniqueness" issue is a complex issue and enforcing it would mean restricting use cases like the one mentioned above. This is not in the scope of this module and thus marked 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)

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

Reason for disagreement: I strongly disagree with the response. Although two people in the same company may share the same company email, it's rare (to be honest, I never see this) that two people will share the phone number even in the same company. In addition, as an application acted as an address book, the contact information is really important especially when you say that it's relative to business. Hence, checking the validation of phone numbers is essential which should be in the scope of the A-Bach Book.

:question: Issue type

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

Reason for disagreement: This should be a feature flaw instead of a functionality bug since it's not described in the UG and not violates the behavior stated in the UG since the feature doesn't fit well with the product and target users.