search

SongZijin / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

All changes to packing list have to base on index of item #3

Open SongZijin opened 1 year ago

SongZijin commented 1 year ago

To edit anything related to an item, the user has to first know the index of the item to change. Although this index can be found in various ways, such as the find or list function, it requires an additional step from the user, providing inconvenience for when using the app. This is especially so if the user wants to pack according to the list of unpacked items after listunpacked, they have to do an additional step to find the actual index before being able to change the item.

nus-se-bot commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

This suggestion is an improvement, it is not a feature flaw as this is a complete feature based on what is described by the UG.

Similarly, the argument can be made if editquantity were to be done using item name, that the user would have to go through extra lengths to find the full name using 'list', and then type in the full item name instead of just the item index.

In both cases, this requires a 2 step process which invalidates the initial argument.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: I understand this suggestion is asking for an alternative way of editquantity,

Features that work as specified by the UG but should have been designed to work differently (from the end-user's point of view) fall in this category too.

which is an acceptance testing bug, and thus should not be rejected due to the fact that it is already described by UG as complete.

I do agree that it would still be a 2-step process to find the name, then update the item, but for the users who wish to use the listunpacked function, they have a 3-step process: list all the unpacked, find the index of the unpacked item (by list all or find), then update the item of that index. This can be very confusing to a user, especially if they are not familiar (and I understand that it is mentioned in the UG to take note of this, but people may make mistakes and there is no undo button). Thus, I think it may be a valid improvement to inbuilt the find function into the edit portion, such that people can edit based on the word present in the function may be better.

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]