nus-pe-script
commented
11 months ago Team's Response
Due to the lack of screenshots and explanation provided on your end, this is our current understanding of your issue.
The definition of invalid is not as narrowly defined as “specifications highlighted in the fields table”. Duplicate fields are considered to be invalid, as seen in the potential errors table: "Multiple values specified for the following single-valued field(s): …”.
As such, the reported bug of missing the extension of duplicate fields is unnecessary, as our current extension of invalid input already covers the case of duplicate fields. Repeating this in another extension does not bring any extra value.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Despite your assertation that "Invalid" is not narrowly defined, the language used definitely leads the user to believe as such (Given how the only error message with the word "Invalid" is for invalid command format). Developers may be confused when their command format is correct but they still face the same error.
Additionally, in UC07, where you add tags to a person in the contact list, you clearly break down each potential error into separate extensions, showing that you already employ this format for other UCs. As such, I still believe this issue to be a valid one as it omits valuable information regarding extensions.
Additionally, as per the CS2103/T website, missing extensions is a valid issue for Documentation Bugs. I feel as though this is especially so in a case where the function already has many potential errors.
The parameters might be valid, despite being repeated. As such, they should have their own extension.