nus-pe-script
commented
1 year ago Team's Response
No details provided by team.
The 'Original' Bug
[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]
Prefix for attendance is too lengthy.
A shorthand should be considered, as this violates the quick typing constraint of the project. You have to repeat attendance twice in a single command, which is not ideal.
[original: nus-cs2103-AY2223S1/pe-interim#3042] [original labels: type.FeatureFlaw severity.Low]
Their Response to the 'Original' Bug
[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]
Does not affect normal usage of the product.
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 response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: While you are right that this does not affect the normal usage of the product, this feature flaw is clearly not optimised for fast-typist as it is too long. It is also not consistent as your team abbreviated the availability prefix but not the attendance or assignments prefix. In addition, as seen in the screenshot from the CS2103T website, this is a bug.
The prefix of the attendance command is "attendance" which is a long word, it should be shorted to "at"? Like what your team did with the availability prefix.
This is also a problem with the assignment prefix.