search

jeffreytjs / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Inaccuracy naming of autocomplete feature #10

Open jeffreytjs opened 3 years ago

jeffreytjs commented 3 years ago

As described in the DG, "commandTextField in CommandBox detects changes in the user input and parse the input into showAutoCompleteResult() method in ResultDisplay".

This meant that users will only get to observe the suggested commands in the ResultDisplay and there is currently no implemented solution to select the commands and put them in the commandBox. The default solution is to use the mouse to copy paste, which could work but it wouldn't really qualify this feature as an autocomplete feature in my opinion.

This might even mislead the future developers as to why it is implemented this way is not documented and there is no example usage scenario. Both of which would greatly help in clearing up the ambiguity.

image.png

nus-se-bot commented 3 years ago

Team's Response

Severity changed from medium -> very low since it's a naming issue that doesn't affect user operations.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.VeryLow] Originally [severity.Medium]

Reason for disagreement: Admitting that this is a naming issue directly mean that this function is not as it intended. Would like to counter the lowering of severity as it could mislead a developer by providing inaccurate description. The group did not address my intial point regarding the missing "why it is implemented this way" and lack of "example usage scenario".

The unclear response to my bug reports could mean that they agree with it, or they are disregarding it by concluding that it is a naming issue. The naming issue is a huge issue since it could mean completely different things. Would really appreciate if the team could provide a more elaborate explanation. Refusing to accept as is and yet choosing to lower the severity is sending a confusing message. I'm not sure how to explain myself because the team has failed to defend their own features.

I would accept lowering the severity if they explicitly accept it first as a functionality flaw and would try to make up for it by updating the documentation to reflect the changes. But their response is a bit disappointing.

While it fits the definition that it doesn't affect user operation, I would like to argue that the user in this case refers to developers and therefore this flaw is not purely cosmetics. This lack of proper description and documention is likely to confuse future developers apart from the developing team.