search

igezt / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Fields are printed out as "Optional[x]" which is very confusing for people with no technical background #9

Open igezt opened 1 year ago

igezt commented 1 year ago

image.png

nus-pe-bot commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

Thank you for your feedback.

Changing to feature flaw because this isn't a functionality bug as it is expected output. Rejecting because this is documented as intended behavior, and users would take note of this when reading the UG.

image.png

Also changing to severity of VeryLow. Tester did not provide justification for low. It does not affect normal usage of the application, as users are still able to see the information the input. Also, as our target user group is NUS SoC students, it is likely that they will come from a somewhat technical background.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: Just because you put it as intended behavior does not make this bug right. It would be far simpler to just give a simpler command result of:

[Field]: [Value of Field]

rather than using Optionals in your command result.

It is confusing to users and should be changed.

Moreover, the idea of "Optional.empty" is a syntax that is very much only seen in Java and popular languages. If an SOC student who has not had experience coding yet sees this (i.e. they are a year 1 student who has only taken CS1101S), they will be very confused when seeing this.

## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FeatureFlaw`] Originally [`type.FunctionalityBug`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** It is a feature flaw as your feature of the command result window does not give a clear response to users who do not have a deep technically background (e.g. a Year 1 student who only has experience in CS1101S) Users will wonder what it means to have "Optional" there, and will also wonder why the developers didn't just do the simpler option. Once again, just because it is intended, does not make the bug right.
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Low`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** The idea of "Optional.empty" is a syntax that is very much only seen in Java and popular languages. If an SOC student who has not had experience coding yet sees this (i.e. they are a year 1 student who has only taken CS1101S), they will be very confused when seeing this. This fits the definition of a "Low" severity bug as seen here: >A flaw that is unlikely to affect normal operations of the product. Appears only in very rare situations and causes a minor inconvenience only. It is not merely cosmetic as users will be left confused on if it is has a different meaning. Even more so because your Name field does **NOT** have an Optional tag beside it. Once again, just because it is intended, does not make the bug right.