Bidders are defined as Unique by name alone

[Whleee]

Issue Description:

When adding bidders, the application does not allow users to add a Bidder with the same name but different phone number, which should be not that uncommon in the real world.

Steps to reproduce:

1. add-b n/Bobby p/2345678
2. add-b n/Bobby p/23434436

Expected result:

Adding 2 different bidders named bobby but with different contact numbers.

Actual Result:

An error that says bidder already exists.

Additional details/Screenshots:

[nus-se-bot]

Team's Response

This feature of the product was intended to have only unique names. You might argue that names can be common, which I agree to a certain extent. However, we felt that allowing duplicate names would be too confusing (e.g imagine you having 5 Seans as your clients?), this leaves only the phone number difference to be only visible difference which is a less likely way of associating people. This design is completely intentional and ultimately chosen to prevent confusion. Furthermore, this would also prove to be more useful when you are referring back in the future.

We designed this so that a moment of laziness to spell out someone's name (which is common) in full which can potentially lead to confusion is expunged. We seek your understanding on this design and see the merits of it which we fully think is worth standing behind.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Although I can see where the team is coming from in the response, the reason I put the bug as a feature flaw is because being an application that keeps track of the properties for sale in the market, there is a sizeable amount of properties in the market and hence a sizeable number of sellers and bidders. As a result, the probability of someone having the exact same full name is likely not very low. As a result, in the off chance that someone does indeed have the exact same name, the application will fail to record the person, and the user will have to register the person under a different name, resulting in inconveniences to the user.

---

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.VeryLow] Originally [severity.Medium]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Given the guidelines, a VeryLow severity implies only minor cosmetic errors. However, this problem of not handling people with the exact same names results in some inconveniences to the user, and therefore i believe that the severity should at least be Low and not VeryLow.

---