RiyaMehta2211 / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Incorrect message for Remark Command #2

Open RiyaMehta2211 opened 11 months ago

RiyaMehta2211 commented 11 months ago

Screenshot 2023-11-17 at 4.27.35 PM.png

Displays a "Removed remark" successful message, even though there were no remarks originally for 4. David Li at first. Categorizing as feature flaw as Remark command exhibits somewhat incomplete behaviour by not displaying the right error message saying. "No remarks found" or something similar

nus-pe-script commented 11 months ago

Team's Response

Reason for the Response.NotInScope:

Currently the UG mentions that clearing or deleting the remark can be done by omitting the prefix r/. Thereby, this could be argued that the command actually gives the correct success or error message. Hence, the current message is befitting of clearing a remark since that is its main purpose.

image.png

image.png

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

Reason for disagreement: I disagree as the Not In Scope bugs are those where a lot more effort is required in comparison to the value added and can be delayed until future iterations. And a Feature Flaw bug exhibits incomplete behaviour as compared to the expectations of a user pertaining to the feature in question.

Screenshot 2023-11-23 at 5.18.21 PM.png

As per this screenshot, I think that checking whether the remark exists is an implementation that could be done without much additional effort required, so that the app will work in a better way that aligns with the user's expectation on the behaviour. This bug fix should be in scope as a user would expect an error message for a person with no remarks in the first place, and not a success message stating the remark has been removed.

It seems counter intuitive for user to get a message stating that the remark has been removed, when there were no remarks originally. And this bug fix I would argue should be in scope as current behaviour can be classified as "slightly incorrect", and can be corrected without much additional effort required. This bug fix, I feel should not be delayed till future iterations, and thus should be in scope.