Extra filler words within filter command ignored

[freshcabbage123]

1. filter n/Roy produces the same result below as filter 123 n/Roy

Perhaps stronger validation of commands that accept parameters should have been considered. As typos are common even among fast typers there should have been warnings in place to notify users that extraneous words such as the example shown above would have been voided / or produce some other unintended consequences. If i didn't know that it would not lead to any effects, I would have to go back to my command and delete the 123 which is a huge waste of time for a fast typer.

[soc-se-bot]

Team's Response

The intended behaviour for the command is to ignore the preamble before any fields are provided as fast typists may accidentally type extra words into the preamble where they did not intend. The report states that if a typist knew that such typos would be ignored, they would have to go back to delete the ignored text 123. However, the implementation already saves them the time of having to go back to delete the ignored text. Therefore, it is unclear what the issue is.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.IssueUnclear]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: > The intended behaviour for the command is to ignore the preamble before any fields are provided

There is no mention of this in the UG and no evidence provided by the developer team to assert this claim. How will users be able to read the mind of the developers?

The closest in meaning would be the above section on commands that DO NOT take in parameters. However, this does not apply to commands that DO accept parameters such as my example of filter command which takes in name as a parameter. The filter command is also being able to accept extraneous parameter of 123.

In the above screenshot which is based on the UG section that relates to filter, there is no mention that the intended behaviour is to ignore the preamble of 123.

As such, I argue that the team does not provide enough justification to prove to the tester or indicate within the UG for fast typist users that the preamble is ignored. It is a legitimate user behavior is not handled (e.g. extra parameters), thus a functionality bug.

---