The limit to "find" command only searching exact match not reasonable

[heeeyi]

Indeed the DG already specifies that the find command only search for exact matches, like "find i/egg" cannot search the recipe containing "eggs". However, I feel this would to quite a large degree affect the usage of the app itself, because it is quite common for people use "egg" and "eggs" interchangeably. So I feel this should still count as bug.

[soc-se-bot]

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

Find feature only able to search entire words

Description

When adding recipes, some recipe names include the type of food that is being created in the name i.e. cheesecake is a cake

When using find on cake, a user would expect to see cheesecake as one of the find results, however, find is only able to find the entry if the entry is cheese cake, where cake is a word on its own.

Steps for reproducing

1. clear
2. add t/cheesecake i/flour, 4, teaspoon, 0.02 s/mix the flour d/cheesecake
3. add t/sponge cake i/flour, 4, cups, 0.3 s/mix flour into batter d/spongey
4. find r/cake

Expected Output

Cheesecake and sponge cake entry

Actual Output

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2223S2/pe-interim#674] [original labels: severity.Low type.FeatureFlaw]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Mentioned in Planned Enhancements 6

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)

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---

## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.NotInScope`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** Still, I feel the implementation of "find" is quite problematic here. I understand that the group has adopted the strategy of "separating the entire input into a stream of words, and matching word-by-word". However, this could result in severe inconvenience for potential users. For a recipte that needs eggwhite, the original record could potentially be "eggs", "egg", "eggwhite", but now I can only try my luck for the exact mathcing. It will make the find functionality very annoying to use. For this reason, I feel the team is a bit "taking the easy way out" by claiming it not in scope.

---

## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FeatureFlaw`] 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:** Such implementation of "find" could result in severe inconvenience for potential users. For a recipte that needs eggwhite, the original record could potentially be "eggs", "egg", "eggwhite", but now I can only try my luck for the exact matching. Imagine I need to think everytime "do I record this as eggs? egg? eggwhite? cake? cakes? cheesecake?" before finding a recipe! It will make the find functionality very annoying to use, losing its meaning for a lot of users.

---