Description

Under the Edit command section of the UG, there's this part that mentions how "You can type the first few letters ...as long as it corresponds to a valid name for convenience.". However, it isn't very clear on what this does - does it change the corresponding existing illness? Or does it add on to the corresponding illness given the shorter input?

To Reproduce

Run edit 1/aut

Reason for Severity

As it is quite unclear, the reader may accidentally assume that it is an "add-on" edit, justified by the fact that at the "Features" section of the UG, it's mentioned that [i/ILLNESS] can be added multiple times. As with the example used to reproduce this, it is highly possible that the doctor wishes to add an additional illness of Autoimmune Disease, only to realise after running the command that it replaces the existing disease.This is something that can happen to ANYONE, and since the ambiguity in the user guide could cause for potential unwanted data loss (when the existing illness gets overriden), I would classify this as a Medium bug.

Team's Response

Currently, the documentation can be considered not factually wrong, as it still allows users to edit the illness value of the medical record. Though it can be improved to make it clearer as what the issue has stated. The team has decided that this can be considered a documentation enhancement which can be done in future releases. NotInScope.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

[x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Under the Documentation Bugs section of the course website, it says that "tester misunderstandings can be caused by inadequate documentation - something that was not explained clearly enough in the document". In this case, its not that the documentation is factually wrong, but there is a lack of clarity in what the edit does. The ambiguity of the edit Illness instruction is a documentation bug as a result of inadequate documentation since it is possible for readers to misunderstand that the edit is an add-on.

Nonetheless, I would like to reduce the severity level to severity.Low, since I realise that the data loss can still be recoverable by the undo operation if the overwritten Illness is discovered immediately, but the consequence of this documentation flaw if undetected by the user immediately results in a replaced Illness, which is still a problem. Also, as per the course website, since adding a line or two to explain that the edit operation REPLACES the existing Illness does not take much effort, I think it should not be delayed to future iterations, and hence should not be counted as NotInScope.

lynnetteeee / pe