Trace feature ambiguous

[TheodoreKooo]

In the top part of the User Guide called "Command summary" , the command for the trace feature is said to be trace PATIENT_INDEX. However, when i typed in to trace a patient's index, the output does not actually trace a patient's, rather it traces the appointment index. I understand that in a section below this trace feature contradictorily mentions that it traces the appointment index and all patients that are involved. But for a user this may not be intuittive and it may cause confusion as it is likely that a user would refer to the command summary.

Input: trace 1 Expected output: Tracing all appointments for Patient index 1(Charlotte Oliveiro), based on the command summary page Actual output: Tracing all patients involved in appointment index 1 instead.

[nus-se-bot]

Team's Response

Thank you for the feedback.

We believe that this is not a feature flaw but actually documentation flaw as you have mentioned as part of the issue "Contradicting details on the trace feature in the User guide #1282", which is a valid documentation issue. Reason being, this scenario arises from following the typo in the documentation, instead of being a bug in the feature itself.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Contradicting details on the trace feature in the User guide

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.

---

In the Command summary section in page 14 of the User Guide, the Trace patients action seems to have a format of trace PATIENT_INDEX while in page 7, it shows that tracing is actually in the format of trace APPT_INDEX. This can get extremely confusing for a user as the command summary page is the incorrect version. Most users would likely use the command summary page first for convenience and would be confusing when the trace results return the traced contacts based on appointment index instead of the client index.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#1630] [original labels: severity.Medium type.DocumentationBug]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thank you for your feedback, it is a good spot and we have made a careless typo in the summary table.

We agree that stating PATIENT_INDEX instead of APPOINTMENT_INDEX can indeed cause confusion for users. We believe this should be classified as severity.Low because of the error message that users can expect when using the trace command wrongly, as seen by the screenshot below:

Referring to the course website, severity.Medium : A flaw that causes occasional inconvenience to some users, but they can continue to use the product. Here, we believe that users will understand the the usage of trace should be followed by APPOINTMENT_INDEX after using the command wrongly, hence there should not be occasional inconvenience caused to the user.

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)

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---

## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.DocumentationBug`] Originally [`type.FeatureFlaw`] - [ ] 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]

---