search

flexibo / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Wrong/unclear error message for add and edit command in command summary #5

Open flexibo opened 1 year ago

flexibo commented 1 year ago

Copied from command summary in the UG, unsure why the following command throws an error.

add n/Snowball p/98765432 e/snowball@example.com tele/@snowballll from/10:00 to/12:00 t/fulltime c/CS1231S h/10

image.png

same for the edit command

edit n/Snowball p/98765432 e/snowball@example.com tele/@snowball from/10:00 to/12:00 t/fulltime c/CS1231S h/10 image.png

soc-se-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]

Wrong example commands in Command Summary

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.

Based on my previous bug report regarding wrong/incorrect error messages, I realized the issue was that the add command does not accept from/ and to/ parameters as shown below:

Add action in Command Summary UG:

image.png

Same for the Edit action in Command Summary UG:

image.png

The previous bug report as mentioned earlier is still a bug since it provided the wrong error message. (unable to update previous bug report as it is passed the deadline).

This is a medium severity since it can cause inconvenience and confusion to readers who will jump to the command summary which does not work, forcing them to read the above parts of the UG to get the right command. (not high severity since the other section explaining the add and edit command is correct).

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#3075] [original labels: type.DocumentationBug severity.Medium]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thanks for pointing this out, there should not be the from and to prefixes in the add and edit commands.

This would be a one-time issue as the first time the user realizes that it doesn't work and has figured it out, they would not face this issue again. Therefore, we believe that this should be of low severity as it is a one-time inconvenience.

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 type Team chose [`type.DocumentationBug`] Originally [`type.FunctionalityBug`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** For long time users (or users with short term memory) who would eventually come back to the command summary and refer to the example commands, there is a chance that they might forget about the issue and just get confused again. Additionally, the point of the command summary is to give quick references to the user, but if they need to click more than twice to see the correct example commands (at the top of the UG), then it no longer serves that purpose, which also impacts overall user experience. Therefore, I still think this should still be considered a medium severity.