Duplicate tutorial not defined

[amoschee]

Describe the Bug

When adding new tutorials using createtut, the tutorial names are saved with the cases matching the input. This would suggest that the same tutorial name with different casing would be considered as different tutorial names. However, when I tried it, it shows an error message suggesting that it is already exists. The definition of duplicate tutorial is not mentioned in the UG as well so it could cause confusion for users.

Expected Behaviour

Either accept tutorial names with different casing are considered distinct, or mention it in the UG

[nus-se-bot]

Team's Response

In the textbook, it is stated that if the behaviour is not specifically stated in our UG, we go by the reasonable correct behaviour that one expects.

So what you said about "This would suggest that the same tutorial name with different casing would be considered as different tutorial names." does not make sense. (Doesn't mean that they are saved in different casing, then they must be considered different). E.g. So let's say your system checks duplicate person by name, then you are saying you would consider Alex and alex as two different persons?

Hence, in this case, the most reasonable behaviour for inputs with different casings will be to reject them since they are already present in the system. (E.g. System already has Physics tutorial in the system, a new admin comes and does not know about it, and tried to add physics tutorial in, but he/she added physics instead, the most resonable behaviour would be to reject it and tell the user that this tutorial already exists in the system.)

Moreover, although this is not mentioned in the UG, we go by the most reasonable correct behaviour that the user expects. And we believe that this is rather intuitive and expected for the user, so we decided to omit it from the UG for clarity sake. Hence we decide to reject this issue.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---