search

john-nng / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

More Specific error message for invalid years input for profile mode #6

Open john-nng opened 5 months ago

john-nng commented 5 months ago

when entering an age such as 200, I want a more specific error message such as "Please enter an age in the range [x-y]"

image.png

nus-se-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 the input is indeed invalid (and not like wrong formatting as there is no formatting requirement) 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 there is little chance that our target user is 200 years old given that the oldest human we can find online is only 157 years old. And it should be a feature flaw as the program works perfectly fine, did not failed but prompt for a valid age.

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]