search

ValenciaLim / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Can add multiple different person using the same phone number #12

Open ValenciaLim opened 2 months ago

ValenciaLim commented 2 months ago

List already exist a John Doe using the phone number: 98765432 but can still add Joe using the same phone number.

image.png

nus-pe-bot commented 2 months ago

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

The app allows adding persons with same fields with different names.

add cn/Google n/John Doe p/98765432 e/johnd@example.com a/311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 tt/121220221400 i/Birthday: 12 May 2001 s/5000 pl/Java t/friends t/owesMoney pri/2

image.png

After this, I only change the name and keep other fields the same.

add cn/Google n/John Doe p/98765432 e/johnd@example.com a/311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 tt/121220221400 i/Birthday: 12 May 2001 s/5000 pl/Java t/friends t/owesMoney pri/2

image.png

This still works but might not make sense in real life. Perhaps can mention that in the UG.

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#215] [original labels: severity.Low type.FeatureFlaw]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thank you for raising this issue. While we acknowledge that not detecting duplicate contacts based on fields other than names can inconvenience some users, supporting this feature is currently not within our scope due to existing project priorities and resource constraints. In the context of job seeking, people such as those from HR can have similar fields, for example, the address can be the company address, the phone can be the company phone, and the email can be a shared email etc. Furthermore, the UG does not mention supporting this feature. Hence, we have labeled this as NotInScope. Thank you for your understanding.

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)

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.NotInScope`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** While it is unlikely that user will enter a repeating phone number, this is a flaw that should have been solved during the tP iterations to ensure the integrity of the data given by the user. If the integrity of the data cannot be guaranteed then the application is of no use and value.
## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FeatureFlaw`] Originally [`type.FunctionalityBug`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]