search

brelkh / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Cannot add two buyers with same name #3

Open brelkh opened 2 years ago

brelkh commented 2 years ago

image.png

If two of my buyers have the same name, I cannot add them both to AgentSee so I will have to resort the other methods like "Yu Qi A" and "Yu Qi B" to add them.

Could be medium severity as this can be quite common and users have to figure out a workaround

soc-se-bot commented 2 years ago

Team's Response

We have decided not to have duplicate names in our design. We provided a suggestion in our User Guide already, or see our duplicate issue.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Adding Buyers with the same name not allowed

image.png

Added Candice once with phone number 1 Tried to add Candice again with a different phone number into Buyers list using add-b

I allocated it as a feature flaw as there could be additions to buyers with the same name but different phone numbers.

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2122S2/pe-interim#1874] [original labels: severity.Medium type.FeatureFlaw]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

image.png

According to our design, we do not allow buyer with the same name, but in our user guide we give suggestion on handling the situation when there are 2 buyers with the same name.

Because it is rare for two client to have the exactly same name, we think it is a very minor problem and we have addressed it in our UG, thus we think it is a Severity.low.

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)

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: The groups states that they do not allow buyers with the same name and suggests workarounds in the UG. They also claim that such an issue is rare, which is why they think it is a minor problem. In my opinion, if the group recognises the issue and has to suggest a workaround for users in the UG, but does not explain why this limitation exists, perhaps they failed to consider and implement this feature well in the first place. Thus, it could have been designed better, and is a feature flaw.

Furthermore, in their response to the duplicate issue, the team admits "we think it is a very minor problem" and "... we think it is a Severity.low", but rejected the issue altogether (as if there were no problem at all). As written in the PE instructions, "Note: Disagreement with the bug severity/type given by the tester is not a valid reason to reject the bug."

image.png