[UG] Client_Name in Schedule commands should be more specific

[jovantanyk]

In the UG, the prefix for CLIENT_NAME is n/ , this is the same prefix used for the other Clients in the application. However, there is no clarification if the CLIENT_NAME here refers to just any random person or to specifically a client in the application. If CLIENT_NAME here refers to a Client in the application, there should be validation to make sure the client indeed exists in the app. If CLIENT_NAME here simply refers to a person, then it should be made clearer as currently it's unclear what it refers to.

Currently, App Behaviour treats CLIENT_NAME as just a name and with no reference to actual client, this should be updated in the documentation as well for clarity

[soc-pe-bot]

Team's Response

The field is only restricted to alphanumeric characters, as specified in the user guide. While this criterion may seem simple, it encompasses all necessary constraints outlined in the user guide regarding this parameter. Hence, we believe that this issue should be rejected as the stated constraints are quite clear.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: The issue is that in other commands, when updating an existing client, you use the same prefix. It's easy for a user to get confused and assume that you're referring to a Client in the app itself, more so when the name of the field is called "CLIENT_NAME". Because there is a potential for confusion and it might hinder the user into only typing "Client Names" in the app, and not just any names, I feel that this is indeed a documentation bug and should not be rejected

---