Inappropriate choice of identifier for person

[freshcabbage123]

Steps

1. add n/John Doe p/98765432 e/johnd@example.com a/John street, block 123, #01-01
2. add n/John Doe p/98765432 e/johnd@exameple.com a/John street, block 123, #01-01

Expected

Expected both commands to execute successfully.

Actual

This person already exists in the address book

Explanation

Two people sharing the same name is common as such they should be added successfully. Perhaps a more appropriate identifier would have been to use a combination of email and other fields. It is also not stated that the application uses name as an identifier leading the tester or any user to have to guess, thus causing a greater inconvenience.

[nus-se-script]

Team's Response

Given that UniMate is meant to be used by students to save the contacts of other students, the legal name of a person is not required to be used. Therefore, when saving two people with the same name, it is possible to use a nickname or a differentiating term in the name to differentiate them (i.e. Ryan Lim Cousin and Ryan Lim CS2103).

Additionally, it unlikely that a user saving two people with the same name would save them with the same name in the app as well as this would cause confusion for the user.

Nonetheless, it would be possible to give the user more flexibility in this regard and add more support for people with the same name.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: This feature flaw could have been better and easily resolved by taking a combination of fields as the primary key i.e. to identify a unique person. It does not require much changes on the dev part and could have been done so easily.

---

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:**  The team's response suggests using a nickname or a differentiating term in the name field as a workaround for instances where two individuals share the same name. However, this approach may not be intuitive or practical for all users, as it relies on them to create and remember unique identifiers, which can be burdensome and prone to error. It is also not warned to the users in the UG or indicated at all in the UG that name was used as an identifier, as such this is a feature flaw. This is probably of medium-high severity as it is a flaw that would cause occasional inconvenience to most users.

---