search

ailanthustng / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Wrong return message for index of "111111111111111111111111111111111111" #5

Open ailanthustng opened 4 years ago

ailanthustng commented 4 years ago

"111111111111111111111111111111111111" is an integer yet the return message is that the format is wrong.

Screenshot 2020-04-17 at 14.34.32.png

nus-pe-bot commented 4 years ago

Team's Response

Hi, thank you for the report. Technically, your input is a long or big integer, not an integer. This seems to be an issue that is nitpicking on english definitions and not a "Feature Flaw", as claimed.

Practicall, users will not have greater than 2^31 (more than 2 billion) tasks at any point, so users will not encounter this "issue". Following the bug severity guidelines, we have assigned "Very Low" severity to this bug as this does not affect the user's usage at all.

In summary, integer is a reasonable way to describe a number that should not have decimal places. We will be glad to accept suggestions if the tester has a better way to call a number that has no decimal places.

As this is not a "Feature Flaw", and there are no actions required, we will reject this issue.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: (I meant to put this as a functionality bug, sorry for that)

In my opinon, from a user point of view, a user will not know what is a "long", "big integer" or maybe even an "integer". These are all via hidden away from the user and only a programmer / developer would know this. Hence, it is not about nitpicking on english definitions but rather about looking at the application from a User point of view. In this case, the user might understand what is a "integer" but will be confused as to why it isn't allowed as the long string of 1s is technically just a integer (to the user).

Next, I understand that practically this large number of tasks is likely to be impossible, yet I should still be handled in this case, such as limited the number of tasks, etc.

Suggestion: to a user, "number" simply refers to just a number, and in this case, i'm sure that the user wouldn't input a decimal since the previous part of the command only had "integers" as indices.

The problem here is the return message. In this case, I believe that "11111111111...." is not an invalid "format of index". I don't think that the format is wrong. To the user, this is just numbers. "1" has the same format as "1111......", and that is why I feel that the return message is wrong. Not so much on just the "integer" portion of the return message.

:question: Issue severity

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

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]