search

kab-dot / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Duplicate Logs detection #15

Open kab-dot opened 2 months ago

kab-dot commented 2 months ago

Screenshot 2024-04-19 at 5.01.12 PM.png

Screenshot 2024-04-19 at 5.01.22 PM.png

Perhaps should have duplicate detection for this? As I can add two logs of the exact same persons, dates and remarks

nus-pe-bot commented 2 months ago

Team's Response

This issues involves the same problem concerning the adding of duplicate logs.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Able to add duplicate logs

Summary: Logs with the exact same details can be added to ElderScrolls.

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Add a log with valid details.
  2. Add the exact same log again.
  • Expected: Some notice indicating log already exists or a rejection.
  • Actual: Log gets added.

Improvement suggestion: Maybe this could be disallowed? Since person already has duplicate detection.

Screenshot: image.png

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#584] [original labels: severity.Low type.FeatureFlaw]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

From the user's point of view, "duplicate" logs are categorised as expected and correct behaviour.

Why? This is because the specificity of logs are limited to date (and not time). Realistically, it is not uncommon to expect multiple logs on the same day. According to the target audience of volunteer managers, the same pair of befriendee and volunteer can go for the same activity on the same day for the same duration in real-life.

Consider this example: The same pair can separately meet for meals for 2 hours on the same day (for lunch and dinner). Since remarks and titles are optional, using some default template kept in a text editor, they could have the same title "Met for Meal", with no remarks, and the same duration of 2 hours, with naturally the same date. To disallow such "duplicate" logs occuring on the same day would be overly constrictive and hurt the usability of our product in such a use case.

As such, "duplicate" logs here can be expected and it is fact normal and correct behaviour expected by this target user of volunteer managers. This is something that we deliberated and intended on in our early stages of planning, which resulted in the difference in duplication detection between logs and persons.

Nonetheless, we do acknowledge this to be a valid concern. Under the premise that in the future a field in a log is added to indicate the start time, such that logs on the same day can be differentiated, support for duplicate logs would definitely become relevant and required in future versions.

As such, we find good value in testers' view on this, and categorise this report as not in scope.

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 explanation]

## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.NotInScope`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]