nus-pe-bot
commented
2 years ago Team's Response
This is a matter of preference, we decided to implement it this way in line with the module guideline on overzealous input validation. Hence, this is a design choice that we made, and we do not think this warrants a bug. Thanks for the recommendation, we will work on this in future iterations if we are given the chance.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I disagree mainly because this was an issue they already noticed. If the issue was significant enough for them to take notice of it and write it into the user guide, I think that is evidence that this was a situation they were worried would come up in use for normal users.
This is a fairly simple problem to fix in code, and I stand by my reasoning that a user who keys v/lv/ must have done so by accident, and so should qualify as a bug. I think the application should at the very least give the user a warning and not simply wave the problem away.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.Medium]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Classifying this as "verylow" seems entirely wrong, given that this is used to indicate "purely cosmetic errors" and this clearly is more then just a cosmetic issue.
Despite being documented, perhaps this second listed behavior where sort v/lv/ becomes sort v/ should be avoided altogether? When this occurs in use, I think its most likely due to a user error, and should probably be flagged for their notice. I think its very unlikely that the user keys two prefixes v/lv/ and intended for only v/ to be interpreted.