search

craeyeons / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Able to Add Persons with Duplicate Names, Phone Number and Email #2

Open craeyeons opened 1 year ago

craeyeons commented 1 year ago

image.png

Steps to Reproduce:

  1. simply execute add person -n "John Doe" -p 98765432 -e johnd@example.com and add person -n "John doe" -p 98765432 -e johnd@example.com and add person -n "john doe" -p 98765432 -e johnd@example.com

John Doe, John doe and john doe are very likely to be the same person. To add, a matching h/p and email must have been the same person.

nus-pe-script commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

Hi, thanks for the bug report!

We agree that there should be some sort of warning when the user enters a person's name in a different case or enters an already existing phone number and email.

However, we feel this is a low severity functionality bug since this does not really impact the useability of the application in any way.

The UX could have been improved with some warning message (thanks for the suggestion!) but it only causes minor inconvenience since commands like find person exist to quickly view people having the same name(s) (or even matching parts of the name) and so, the user can easily identify such cases of accidental insertion of duplicate data.

Taken from the module's website:

severity.Low : A flaw that is unlikely to affect normal operations of the product. Appears only in very rare situations and causes a minor inconvenience only.

Normally, a user wouldn't add duplicate data and it only causes minor inconveniences even if they do.

Hope this clarifies our rationale behind shifting the severity.

Have a nice reading week ahead!

The 'Original' Bug

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

Duplicate persons check can be improved.

image.png

The app does not allow duplicate persons to be added to the person list. However, minor differences in name such a change in spacing or lower case letters do not throw any warning or prevent users from adding this person even though they are likely to be a duplicate.

This limitation is not made clear in the user guide.

This is a given example of a feature flaw in the module website. Severity is low as it is unlikely to cause significant issues.

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2223S1/pe-interim#4527] [original labels: type.FeatureFlaw severity.Low]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Hi, thanks for the bug report!

While we do understand that it would be a better UX if there were a warning to show if a user enters the same name in different casing or extra spaces, etc, we feel it is beyond the scope of this version of the product to implement this feature. It would require answering questions such as "How close does a string have to match before they can be considered different?" (i.e., minimum edit distance), which are not obvious and often subjective.

For now, we feel this does not cause much inconvenience to the user as they can use our find command to see if they have accidentally entered the "same people" into the application. We agree that it could be a low severity feature flaw if there was no way to find people with similar names, but our particular application does support the find feature (which is case-insensitive too!) which helps users overcome this issue.

Nevertheless, we appreciate your suggestion :)

Have a nice reading week ahead and best of luck for finals!

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.NotInScope]

Reason for disagreement: Consider the context of usage here. Your program is designated for a same team of people. The team lead is very prone to the error of adding the same person into the software without realising especially when the size of the team is beyond 10. Considering how your features interact together, e.g assign random etc. You may accidentally overload this same person, add them twice to the same team, and it may lead to manpower issues.

:question: Issue type

Team chose [type.FeatureFlaw] Originally [type.FunctionalityBug]

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.Low] Originally [severity.Medium]

Reason for disagreement: See above for repercussions and hence why I think it is medium.