search

a1021492980 / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Not able to lost only a specific amount of inventory #11

Open a1021492980 opened 2 years ago

a1021492980 commented 2 years ago

image.png

image.png

Only have the option to lost all quantity. There may be circumstance where only a small quantity is lost

nus-se-script commented 2 years ago

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Wrong usage of lost command

For the lost command in this application, it seems to delete the whole entry in my inventory.

image.png

Instead, we perhaps you can allow the user to report a quantity for lost instead of deleting the whole entry.

[original: nus-cs2113-AY2122S2/pe-interim#1142] [original labels: type.FeatureFlaw severity.High]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

I explained in my PPP why we chose to delete an item from the inventory entirely whenever any quantity of an item is marked lost:

image.png

This function is consistent with what was described of the return command in the UG, which is that lost command would delete the entire item from the inventory (hence we responded "Not in Scope"):

image.png

This was an issue we considered, but we realised it was too complicated to solve within the time frame as it affects all borrowings, past present and future. Hence, we chose to simply delete the entire item from the inventory whether only a partial quantity was lost or not. Nevertheless, we will consider solving this for future implementations.

The severity of this bug was downgraded from High to Medium as this doesn't render the program virtually unusable. The user can just add the item again, this time with reduced quantity.

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]

Reason for disagreement: This is a basic feature that a typical user is expecting, thus this should not be NotInScope.

:question: Issue type

Team chose [type.FeatureFlaw] Originally [type.FunctionalityBug]

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

:question: Issue severity

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

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]