soc-pe-bot
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]
Inaccurate exception message for invalid date
Invalid date is not detected
[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#5853] [original labels: type.FunctionalityBug severity.Medium]
Their Response to the 'Original' Bug
[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]
This is a feature flaw as it is a specificity of error issue as it is not wrong to state that it is in the wrong format. The textbook directly uses this as an example:
However, this was covered under planned enhancement #8.
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)
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I don't think it's a duplicate of the date issue because the lack of specificity for the error message for this one is likely to cause more issues for the user than the date problem. The latter can probably be identified by the user after realising that the date doesn't exist, but for this one, since most users are likely to consider "same customer" as having the same name, it's likely that they'll encounter quite a bit of confusion and difficulty trying to rectify and understand the error message. Also, the covered under planned enhancements part in the original bug is to do with dates, not related to the reported bug.
## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.Rejected`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** As above^
Adding a customer with a different name but the same phone number returns the error message as such:
Perhaps the error message should be rephrased as most users would consider this to mean the inputted name is the same, which given that it is not, might cause quite a bit of confusion. Perhaps specifying in the error that the number should not be pre-existing in the app might be better?