search

jiaweiteo / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Invalid Delete Command. #10

Open jiaweiteo opened 3 years ago

jiaweiteo commented 3 years ago

Command: delete ct/s i/8 casdasdsadw/w i/2

Expected: Invalid command. Error thrown.

Actual: Supplier at index 2 deleted.

image.png

nus-se-bot commented 3 years ago

Team's Response

The command is actually valid by our UG and DG. The content in between ct/s and i/2 is just ignored when CLI-nic parses the command content. In addition, the user may accidentally type some irrelevant content but decides to ignore the mistakes and go ahead with the last "i/2" to delete the 2nd item. As a result, this design will thus speed up the deletion in some sense.

Here the severity of this issue should also be lowered since the command is valid and this format will not affect user's deletion of the 2nd item.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: I went to read up the UG and DG again, and I could not find any details stating that this type of command is valid. It would be helpful if there was a screenshot provided in the team's response, which the team did provide in other bug reports. Nonetheless, the closest information that I found relating to this invalid command is in the UG as shown in the screenshot provided.

I believe that this invalid command is still considered as a functionality flaw as the team did not account for the random characters in the middle. Furthermore, the UG stated that if there are multiple arguments with the same prefix and if the values are valid, then the last prefix value is choosen. I believe that the random characters casdasdsadw/w in the bug report command is certainly not a "valid" value. However, the last prefix value is still chosen by the app and the command input is accepted. Hence, I believe that it is an invalid command since there is no evidence in the UG/DG claiming that invalid values in between the prefixes are actually valid and allowed. This is thus a functionality bug.

image.png

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.Low] Originally [severity.High]

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]