Team's Response

Considered a duplicate as #3316 because it relates to the same bug mentioned that adding the example command does not work as the candidate already exists.

The 'Original' Bug

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

UG add command does not have a good example

Details

As per the UG in the image above, when I copy paste the command into the application, the command has an invalid formatting (shown in screenshot #1). After fixing the command, the values in the example given says that there is already an duplicate candidate. Since the candidate in the list does not show their email or phone number, it is hard for me to know what kind of phone numbers or email already exists. This makes it hard to know whether what fields have already been use for testing. It is also extremely tedious to use the 'focus' command to note what kind of information is already inside without deleting all the information that is present.

Screenshot

1

2

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2122S2/pe-interim#3275] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

The example provided in the add command section was solely used for an example of what a valid add command would look like and what would be the expected result. The system behaviour works correctly by verifying that the candidate already exists. In the event the user is adding an actual candidate, the candidate would be uniquely identified by his/her student id/nus email/phone, which eliminates the issue of the tester not being able to figure out the duplicate. A simple find would also enable the tester to easily figure out which field is duplicated in the system. Hence we believe that this report should be rejected.

With reference to the first provided screenshot (#1), under the PE guidelines, the prof has also mentioned that it is important to verify copied text from PDF. The invalid input is a result of the tester copying from the pdf directly without checks on the spacing that might be affected by copying which is hence not considered a bug and is thus rejected.

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: [replace this with your reason] This issue is a separate issue from the 2nd error reported by me. The 2nd error highlights a spacing issue which may have been due to the error of my pdf viewer.

However, this issue #1 has nothing to do with any spacing issues as seen in the command input ss attached with the original bug report.

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

[x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your reason]

I initially thought that there was a duplicate John Doe in the system but I scrolled through the list of names in the system and found no John Doe. Additionally, this bug was reported at 2:19pm, and the PE had started at 2:10pm. I would not have added anyone into the system because I was still reading the preamble and features section and familiarizing myself with the system. This was the first command that I had input into the system.

After reading the team's response I have realised that the user John Doe, who is being added, has the same id as Alex Yeoh as seen in the screenshot. This is the reason why the error popped up.

I personally believe that the team should have taken the step of ensuring that the example commands given in the UG should not be prone to errors, as all the users shown in the ss were already there at the start-up of the software. In this case, where the duplicate ids would result in an error, it should have been tested prior to the release of the UG.

:question: Issue type

Team chose [type.DocumentationBug] Originally [type.FunctionalityBug]

[ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

imrajsinghsandhu / pe

First example command doesnt work #1