nus-pe-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
No response provided.
The 'Original' Bug
[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]
Inconsistent shift date instructions in UG
Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.
As shown here, the shift date instructions are different in the same section of the UG, this may cause confusion to users when they input the date and encounter error even though they are following your instruction by inputting DDMMYYYY.
[original: nus-cs2113-AY2021S2/pe-interim#265] [original labels: severity.High type.DocumentationBug]
Their Response to the 'Original' Bug
[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]
No response provided.
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)
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: This issue on the Documentation Bug (UG states that the date parameter should be in the format of DDMMYYYY instead of DD/MM/YYYY, missing “/“) is not the same as the other issue which is on a Functionality Bug.
The other issue is on the Functionality Bug that the user cannot key in certain valid dates (31/12/2021) while some are ok (31/01/2021). At the same time, they are able to key in invalid dates when they are not supposed to (31/11/2021).
They are different issues though I agree the severity of this issue could be lower, since it is only on the UG and users can infer after a while that "/" is required in dates in the commands.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.Low]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
Should be dd/MM/yyyy, missing "/" separators which are needed in the input for FastScheduler