Duplicate clients can be added to fitbook if they have differing capitalization of first name

[ararchch]

Overview Self explanatory - adding clients with same name and phone number, but one with an altered capitalisation is allowed, which contradicts UG.

Steps to reproduce

• run fitbook
• run 'add n/John Doe p/98765432 e/johnd@gmail.com a/John street, block 123,#01-01 nt/john from school'
• run 'add n/John Doe p/98765432 e/johnd@gmail.com a/John street, block 123,#01-01 nt/john from school'

Expected behaviour

• Error saying duplicate entry

Actual behaviour

• Both added to fitbook

Potential solution

• Check for case insensitivity more thoroughly

Screenshots

note that the values are same for all the fields (case insensitive)

[soc-pe-bot]

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Duplicate persons with case insensitive name can be added, unlike what is stated in the UG

Based on UG, it is mentioned that name is case insensitive, so I would expect adding John and john to be considered duplicates and throw an error. However, I was able to add both John and john as seen below:

Steps:

1. add n/John p/98765432 e/john@gmail.com a/Clementi Ave 2 nt/BFF t/friend
2. add n/john p/98765432 e/john@gmail.com a/Clementi Ave 2 nt/BFF t/friend

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#4341] [original labels: type.FunctionalityBug severity.Low]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

We agree that we could have checked for case insensitivity more carefully. Thanks for pointing that out.

Thus, we accept this bug.

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)

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** The team did not provide any justification for why this bug should be downgraded from a medium to a low.  According to the CS2103T website, a downgrade would require justification:  In my opinion it is a medium because this can affect users fairly commonly, and is a elemental feature of a good addressbook or addressbook based software.

---