nus-se-script
commented
2 years ago Team's Response
Hi! Thank you for bringing up this issue. The severity is low as users won't be scheduling meetings back to back with the same client. Hence, it is not required to add multiple meetings to the same client as the user can add a new meeting once the scheduled meeting is completed.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I disagree with the response that this is NotInScope. Here are the conditions that need to be fulfilled for a bug to be NotInScope:
None of the mentioned conditions are satisfied for this bug to be NotInScope:
1) The UG never stated explicitly that only one meeting for a client is supported at a time. (I initially thought it did support it because of this) I have double checked this by finding all references to the keyword "meeting" on the UG. Neither was it mentioned that this feature flaw would be corrected in future versions. Hence condition 1 for NotInScope is not met.
2) Because of 1, a user may think they may be able to add multiple meetings to a client with the meet command. However, because of the way the meet command is set up, it does not inform the user when they put in a new meeting with a client when another meeting already existed. It merely just replaces that old meeting without any warning. This could cause the user to lose track of an important meeting date. Hence the condition 2 that the user cannot attempt to use missing feature or the software handles it gracefully if they do is not met.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.Low]
Originally [severity.Medium]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I think this feature flaw should be Medium severity as based on the severity scale, this is a feature flaw that will definitely cause inconveniences to some users. I do not think it it is correct to disregard this feature flaw by assuming "users won't be scheduling meetings back to back with the same client".
First, the inability to add multiple meetings to a single client is clearly a feature flaw, as in reality, it is often the case that a financial advisor (the target user) may have multiple scheduled meetings with a client, especially if they have regular meetings (like once a week etc). Being unable to keep track of multiple meetings with a particular client is a problem because it reduces the usefulness of the application to its target user significantly.
One possible scenario where this poses inconvenience (among others) could be:
1) Advisor is scheduling a new meeting with one client (client 1)
2) Advisor already has multiple meetings with another client (client 2) coming up, but because they could only store one of those meetings, only one of the meetings with client 2 will have been recorded in HustleBook.
3) Hence they will not know when adding a meeting for client 1 that clashes with the unrecorded meeting with client 2, that that meeting timing has already been taken by client 2.
4) Advisor is inconvenienced as a result, because now they have two clashing meetings and they may not be aware of it if they use HustleBook as their main application to keep track of client meetings.
Thus due to the fact that some target users will definitely by inconvenienced by this feature flaw, by referring to the severity scale - it should be Medium severity.
In reality many users will have many scheduled meetings with a specific client, hence it is unreasonable to prevent a user from adding multiple meetings to a client, and is likely to cause inconveniences to a fair number of clients.
After using the schedule command, my previous meeting with Alex Yeoh was gone. Also in the user guide it is not clear that I can only have 1 meeting with a client.