Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

[Add command] Possible to add contact using empty f/, ig/ tele/, tiktok/ and twitter/ parameter

When entering the add command, if I issue a add n/ann p/021 t/09asdjahhiosbaiosbdiaasdasdjhbasjkdbkajsdbjkha fb/ for example, it successfully executes. And this issue can be found with the parameters mentioned in the title too. Since add is a relatively common command used and there are so many parameters that do no have a valid error message I believe this is a medium error

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2122S1/pe-interim#2769] [original labels: type.FeatureFlaw severity.Medium]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

PLATFORM/HANDLE is an optional field in the add command. When the user type in PLATFORM/ (i.e. with no handle behind), it is expected that SociaLite will accept the input as a valid command and process accordingly.

In the video attached by the tester, upon keying the command, SociaLite understands that no Facebook handle has been given, and ann's contact card (3rd in the list) does not have a Facebook icon and @HANDLE appearing below ann's phone number.

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)

[x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: The original bug report has a different issue from the one mentioned in this bug report. In the original bug report, the issue stated is that empty fields are allowed in the add command. However, the bug stated in this bug report is that, the application does not respond to the command edit r/ at all, i.e. there is no error message, nor does the application process this command. Hence, it is a different issue.

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

[x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: The User Guide does not mention anything about the invalidity of this command, while similar commands like edit n/ gives an error message. As the original bug is a different issue, the team's response does not explain why this bug should be rejected.

:question: Issue type

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

[ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

TaoJun99 / pe

Application does not respond for input `edit 1 r/` #3