nus-pe-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
This issue is not considered an issue by the team. Our application is targeted towards business contact management.
This means that multiple employees can share the same office numbers if the office only has one landline, and the call would then be forwarded internally.
Similarly, the address and email address of different persons from the same company can be the same company address and email address (especially when the company is small and share the same email address for public communication).
This "uniqueness" issue is a complex issue and enforcing it would mean restricting use cases like the one mentioned above. This is not in the scope of this module and thus marked as NotInScope.
The 'Original' Bug
[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]
add command bug: people with different name but same other fields are allowed
steps to produce:
add -n John Doe -p 98765432 -e johnd@example.com -c Google -j Software Engineer -a 311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 -r University friend -t friends -t owesMoney
add -n John Do -p 98765432 -e johnd@example.com -c Google -j Software Engineer -a 311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 -r University friend -t friends -t owesMoney
expected: warning saying, the two persons have the same phone number email address etc
actual: no warning is shown
[original: nus-cs2103-AY2021S2/pe-interim#127] [original labels: severity.Medium type.FunctionalityBug]
Their Response to the 'Original' Bug
[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]
This issue is not considered an issue by the team. Our application is targeted towards business contact management.
This means that multiple employees can share the same office numbers if the office only has one landline, and the call would then be forwarded internally.
Similarly, the address and email address of different persons from the same company can be the same company address and email address (especially when the company is small and share the same email address for public communication).
This "uniqueness" issue is a complex issue and enforcing it would mean restricting use cases like the one mentioned above. This is not in the scope of this module and thus marked as NotInScope.
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)
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I disagree, because they are from different command features. One is from the add command, and this one is from the edit command.
If the add command were revised and inplemented correctly, this edit command will nevertheless cause trouble.
Therefore, they should be considered as separate issues, and thus not duplicated.
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I disagree, because we dont expect the company members to have the same email, same address, same phone number etc. This is weird and can cause trouble.
Furthermore, according to the dev team “multiple employees can share the same office numbers if the office only has one landline, and the call would then be forwarded internally”. I dont think every company has this kind of internal call management, and this can also result in great inconvenience for the employees and customers. Small companies are unlikely to have this kind of call management too. Why not just keep the company members’ individual phone number, email address, and address.
The phone number and address in the sample data given by the dev team do not look like company number and company address too. They look more like personal number and personal address. I think the dev team is making up an excuse on the spot.
Business contact management should not allow people to have the same number, address and email, but same company name is allowed.
If one person entered the same number, address and email for multiple people, when another person tries to contact someone from this list, he will be confused when seeing people with the same contact and address. He will wonder if he is calling or emailing the correct person or multiple persons and may end up not calling or emailing. He will end up cross-checking with his colleague on what’s going on, and why it is so weired. There is great inconvenience.
steps to reproduce:
expected: warning showning that the phone is in use by one of the person in the person list.(beacaue person 1 has the same phone number )
actual: the phone number of person 9 is allowed to be changed.