nus-pe-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
Thank you for your suggestion. However, the team felt that we should not limit the duration further as different people could have a different idea on the "lower limit" and is very subjective. For example, if I put the limit as 30 mins, some user might say that why can't they have a session that is 15 mins. If I put the limit as 15 mins, other user might question why can't they have 10 mins session. Since this is a very subjective issue, the team chose not to make this type of unnecessary restriction and hence, this should NOT be a feature flaw. Should not be a medium issue as well as it doesn't actually affect usage.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I agree that people can have different ideas on the "lower limit", hence it is on your team to decide on a suitable lower-limit with a valid reasoning. I believe having a 1-minute session is definitely not a valid duration. Just like how you set upper limits to a tuition fee with a valid reasoning, setting a more restrictive lower-limit to duration (instead of 1) will not restrict the user's freedom of choosing the duration of a session, and instead prevent users from giving an invalid input.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.Medium]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: This is definitely not a cosmetic issue. It is a feature flaw that can affect the usage of the application when misused.
It's good that your team has set a limit for the session to not cross over 23:59, as well as check if the duration is non-zero or non-negative, setting some limit to "duration". However, may be better to set a more realistic limit, as it doesn't really make sense to add a session lasting for 1 minute! A suggestion is to set a lower limit of 15 or 30 :)