search

john-nng / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Error messages for incorrect weight inputs should be more specific #4

Open john-nng opened 5 months ago

john-nng commented 5 months ago

when I enter a non number, It would be helpful to get feedback such as "Please enter a number"

when I enter a negative number, It would be helpful to get feedback such as "Please enter a positive number"

when I enter a really large number, it would be help to get feedback such as "Enter a weight within range [x-y]"

This is a minor issue image.png

image.png

soc-pe-bot commented 5 months ago

[IMPORTANT!: Please do not edit or reply to this comment using the GitHub UI. You can respond to it using CATcher during the next phase of the PE]

Team's Response

Although it is good to be more specific, there is nothing wrong with the current message as those wrong input are indeed invalid (and not like wrong format as there is no specific formatting needed). Severity should be very low as the specification of error message is more of a cosmetic issue as the UG did mention that as positive numeric value is expected, and a normal human will not have 1100 KG given that the heaviest human on record is only 650KG . And it should be a feature flaw as the program works perfectly fine.

The 'Original' Bug

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

More specific error message for calories mode: eat command

Would be nice to get error message such as "Please input a number" and "Please enter a positive number"

image.png

[original: nus-cs2113-AY2324S2/pe-interim#2143] [original labels: type.FunctionalityBug severity.VeryLow]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Although it is good to be more specific, there is nothing wrong with the current message as those wrong input are indeed invalid (and not like wrong format as there is no specific formatting needed). Severity should be very low as the specification of error message is more of a cosmetic issue as the UG did mention that as positive numeric value is expected, so it should be obvious why "k" and "-1" is invalid. And it should be a feature flaw as the program works perfectly fine. Therefore, we felt that this is mere suggestion and lacks in a convincing justification as to why the current design of that functionality is problematic.

Nevertheless we decide to put in not in scope as it is something that we can improve in the future, but rectifying it is less important (based on the value/effort considerations) than the work that has been done already (because it is fine to delay lower priority work until future iterations).

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)

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your reason]

## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.NotInScope`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your reason]
## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FeatureFlaw`] Originally [`type.FunctionalityBug`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your reason]