nus-se-script
commented
5 months ago Team's Response
The transaction is not added at top or bottom of the list. When the transaction gets added, it gets sorted in the list according to the date and time. The transaction history is displayed such that the latest transaction (according to the date and time you've entered) is displayed at the top. So, when you edited the transaction to an earlier time, its get position in the list gets updated accordingly. But I do agree that the user maybe confused. We could've displayed a more detailed acknowledgement when the transaction gets updated. So, I think this bug is not in the scope of v2.1.
However, I believe that severity should be low and the bug type should be a feature flaw, because the add and edit functions work as expected and the list is sorted correctly. It is also the user's responsibility to enter names for transactions such that they can be differentiated by the user, so it only causes a minor inconvenience to know if the transaction has been edited, if the user uses similar names for transactions. As mentioned earlier, we could've made the edit function better with a more detailed acknowledgement.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FeatureFlaw`] Originally [`type.FunctionalityBug`] - [ ] 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]
I dont understand, as it is not stated in the UG, but the addition of items is from top to bottom.
This is confusing to the user as the user may believe his item is not edited at the specified index, especially when the item is added back from the bottom this time.