Open duynguyen24501 opened 3 years ago
This is an intended behaviour as we did not intend entry's description/tag to be super long. As a business owner, a description of an expense or revenue does not necessarily need to be very long. (no need for proper sentence structure etc) Likewise for tags as well. Additionally, the Tag class and Ui aspect regarding Tag remained unchanged from AB-3. So its display and functionality is inherited from AB-3
Team chose [response.Rejected
]
Reason for disagreement: AB3 does not have description field. The argument that team gave "As a business owner, a description of an expense or revenue does not necessarily need to be very long. (no need for proper sentence structure etc)" is very ambiguous to me. I am not sure whether we can put such an assumption on the users, but I think as long as team did not restrict the number of characters/words for description, the users are allowed to write as much as they want.
Additionally, the UI changed from full width (as AB3) to shorter width, so only 10 words or even fewer would get truncated. Thus, the behaviour is totally different from AB3, so I believe team cannot take AB3 inheritance as defense argument. Therefore, I will reject team response.
Long description ends with ellipsis and cannot display in full. This makes the user cannot differentiate between two long descriptions.