soc-se-bot
commented
1 year ago Team's Response
We accept this bug but are moving the severity to low as the user base of advanced users will be much smaller than new users.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue type
Team chose [type.DocumentationBug]
Originally [type.FeatureFlaw]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I believe that classifying this issue as a DocumentationBug is not correct.
The project constraint explicitly states that editable files should be available for advanced users to manipulate data. This implies that the application should be designed to handle file editing by advanced users. Since this particular constraint was not met, classifying it as a FeatureFlaw is correct.
Also, the developers did not provide any justification as to why the bug type was changed from a FeatureFlaw to a DocumentationBug. The developers only provided reason to why they lowered the severity.
In conclusion, I disagree with the developers stance of classifying this as a DocumentationBug as I firmly believe this to be a FeatureFlaw instead.
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** While I understand that the user base of advanced users may be smaller compared to new users, it is essential to consider the potential impact of this bug on advanced users who do choose to edit the save file. The fact that an **all contents in the file** is removed due to the addition of a **single blank line** presents a considerable inconvenience for advanced users. To add on, the severity of the issue should be evaluated based on the **potential consequences for the affected users, rather than the size of the user base**. In this case, if I have a lot of modules stored previously in the text file but I accidentally modified the file by adding a single blank line, **all contents in the file** is removed. As a user, this is a **heavy consequence that will lead to me not using the application anymore due to this one incident**. Therefore, as suggested earlier, a more practical approach would be to implement a mechanism that detects and removes only corrupted lines instead of deleting the entire file. This approach would better align with the project constraint of allowing editable files for advanced users while minimizing the inconvenience and potential loss of data. Hence, I disagree with the developers stance of lowering the severity to Low.
I understand that in the user guide it is stated that "please do not edit the save file" and there were not any steps recommended in the user guide on how to edit the save file. Hence as an advance user, I decided to add a blank line in the file as shown. and it was detected that the file was corrupted and the file was deleted after the program exits.
I feel that this is a featureflaw as one of the project constraint is to allow for editable files to allow advance users to manipulate the data.
Furthermore, I feel that detecting each line and removing only corrupted lines is a more practical solution than removing all the lines. Because if i have a lot of modules saved and accidentally add a blank line, the whole file will be gone. This would be very inconvenient to me as an advance user.
Justification: Since I as an advance user wants to edit the file, but due to no instructions given in the user guide on how to do so, I added an empty line and the whole file was treated as corrupted and removed all together. This provides quite a large inconvenience to me as I have a lot of modules added in it and the file was just gone. Hence, the severity is medium.