soc-pe-bot
commented
1 year ago Team's Response
Firstly, this issue should not be High severity, as the application is still perfectly usable despite it. At most, it should be Low severity because we already tell the reader in the UG that these fields will be filled with default values. Also, this should be triaged as a Feature Flaw because this is intended behaviour.
Secondly, please refer to our DG, under Planned Enhancements (point 3). Here, we mention that given enough time, we will implement Unknowns to make it clear that the values have not been set:
Since it is covered in our Planned Enhancements, we will be rejecting this issue. Please refer to the CS2103 website:
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
## :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.High`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]
When adding a new person for instance John Loh as shown in the image below, if my command is
add n/John Lohwithout phone, email and other details, there are default contact details added for the person created.If I forgot to include John's contact details, I may be mistaken when checking back, thinking that those are his actual details instead of knowing that it is the default values. I may try to contact him at his email or telegram handle but will not receive any response since they are default values and not his personal details. Hence a suggestion would be to leave them as blank if they are not being filled in.
As noted in the user guide, it is stated that there are default placeholders for missing values, however some may not read it or remember it or notice it and hence will be confused.