Edit command: Using the same inputs counts as edit

[YuSoonZ]

Using the command: edit 1 n/Bern Tan

Generates a success message even though nothing was edited, name is the same. Not sure if this is intended as its not stated within the UG.

[nus-se-script]

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Same name edited

Tested: edit 9 n/Test2 when initial name was Test2 Expected: Raise an error that the same name value was given Actual: Accepted the edit command, confusing for users

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#34] [original labels: type.FunctionalityBug severity.VeryLow]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thank you for reporting this issue!

Our team made a deliberate design choice to not throw an error if the exact same value is provided.

There are two possible scenarios when a user enters the same value for a field:

1. The user actually wants the value of the field to remain the same.
2. The user wants the change the value but there is a typo.

For case 1, not throwing an error would be more convenient because if we threw an error the user would have to edit the command to remove that field and re-run the command which would effectively do the same thing.

For case 2, not throwing an error would cause a typo to not be caught, which is not ideal, however we think this is a worthy trade-off for the convenience in case 1.

We are open to implementing this feature if the majority of our users prefer for this behaviour, however our current opinions is not throwing an error gives a better user experience. Therefore we mark this as NotInScope.

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 response Team chose [`response.NotInScope`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]

---

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Low`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]

---