nus-se-bot
commented
2 years ago Team's Response
A typo, we should have specified more clearly that more advanced users can modify at their own risk. We were considering the less advanced users perspective.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue type
Team chose [type.DocumentationBug]
Originally [type.FeatureFlaw]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.Medium]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Very low severity bugs should purely be cosmetic bugs, but this bug has actual repercussions and most definitely shouldn't be under "very low". Calling the complete omission of file editing support in the application as well as the UG a "typo" is a bit of a stretch; as it stands, right now your application has even lower support (especially for documentation) for json file edits compared to AB3, which it should have at least equal or more support according to the PE guidelines.
Even if the "typo" was rectified and you mentioned that advanced users can edit the file, the new product does not mention that all data will be discarded unlike what AB3 has documented. This means that the repercussions is even worse than what it was in AB3 -- the user might not realize that it was a faulty edit that caused their data to be wiped and end up losing their data multiple times.
(This is somewhere between a feature flaw and a documentation bug)
Under the module's tp constraints, one of the requirements for the save file is it being a human editable text file so that "advanced users [can] manipulate the data". However, including no documentation/in-app feedback upon what is supposed to be a requirement (and going to the extent of telling the users not to modify the save file at all) can be seen as neglecting this particular aspect of the tp. In addition, there is no feedback whatsoever to the data wipe post-error (which starts off the user with an empty list) thus, it needs to be addressed.