nus-pe-bot
commented
2 years ago Team's Response
Dear tester,
What I meant to communicate was that:
Case 1: Looking at only the phone number
A student can be and is uniquely identified by his/her phone number only (i.e. given the phone number 12345678 you can identify that student contact).
Case 2: Looking at only the email
A student can be and is uniquely identified by his/her email only (i.e. given the email example@u.nus.edu you can identify that student contact).
Case 3: Looking at both the email and the phone number
A student can be and is uniquely identified by his/her email and phone number (i.e. given the email example@u.nus.edu and phone number 12345678 you can identify that student's contact).
I agree that this should have been communicated clearer although I think it is still perfectly reasonable to explain it as such as this would not inconvenience the reader in any way. For this I think the severity should be VeryLow
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.Medium]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: The reason I reckon this is a bug is because Cases 1 and 2 are not applicable to your current program.
Case 1: Looking at only the phone number
This would mean that phone number would be the only the unique identifier that separates it from another contact. An example of this would thus be 2 contacts that are entirely the same (same emails as well) with the exception of different phone numbers. This is currently not possible in the program as the clash in emails would have been detected.
Case 2: Looking at only the email
This would mean that email would be the only the unique identifier that separates it from another contact. An example of this would thus be 2 contacts that are entirely the same (same phone numbers as well) with the exception of different emails. This is currently not possible in the program as the clash in phone numbers would have been detected.
Case 3: Looking at both the email and the phone number
A student can be and is uniquely identified by his/her email and phone number (i.e. given the email example@u.nus.edu and phone number 12345678 you can identify that student's contact). This is valid and also what I have observed from the program as well.
This should be uniquely identified by his phone number and email since both fields are currently being used to check for duplicate contacts.
Contacts are not currently identified by phone number or email i.e. I cannot have the same email but different numbers or same number but different emails