search

ZHANGTIANYAO1 / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Missing f/ action scope in UG #7

Open ZHANGTIANYAO1 opened 2 months ago

ZHANGTIANYAO1 commented 2 months ago

I think it could be better to include the action scope of f/ inside UG. For now, UG only metioned that some validation rules can be bypassed and some validation rules cannot be bypassed. It is a bit unclear which rule can bypass used by f/ and which cannot until the user find it out one by one in the program. So I think it might be better to metion it clearly inside UG.

nus-se-script 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]

Explanation of the 'f/' on which fields can be blank is lacking

image.png

image.png

image.png

Description

After reading the UG, I could only derive that 'f/' prefix could bypass invalid values. However, it fails to tell me that I cannot have an empty name. But, the program does say that names should not be blank, just that the UG should be updated to show this details as well.

Steps to reproduce

  1. add f/ n/ e/123@gmail.com r/s

Suggestion

Include a footnote of certain fields that cannot be 'f/' prefixed.

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#4997] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

I'd say that minor omission from the UG like this one is not a bug, since the information is not necessary for the user to use the program. Whatever allowed by the program, the user will know when using it anyway.

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.Rejected`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** I don't think this is a negligible problem, and asking users to try out the scope of f/ one by one in the program will greatly increase the learning cost, so it should be described in UG. This is one of the roles of UG.
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.VeryLow`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** VeryLow only for cosmetic problems and this problem is not a cosmetic problem.