search

macareonie / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Criteria for duplicate person could be stricter/different #3

Open macareonie opened 2 months ago

macareonie commented 2 months ago

Describe the bug

It does not really make too much sense for a duplicate person to be classified only based on their name, especially since that is the one field that is most likely to have duplicates.

To Reproduce

add n/John Doe p/98765432 i/20000 e/johnd@example.com a/311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 f/4 t/buyer t/seller h/HDB r/Has 3 cats b/01May2009

add n/John Doey p/98765432 i/20000 e/johnd@example.com a/311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 f/4 t/buyer t/seller h/HDB r/Has 3 cats b/01May2009

Expected behavior

Many people can have the same names while other fields are less likely (potentially even impossible; think how phone number/email are unique to each person) to have duplicates. The check for duplicates possibly be based on other fields instead.

E.g Allow same names; disallow same phone and email

Screenshots

image.png

nus-pe-bot commented 2 months ago

Team's Response

This highlights the issue of same names shouldn't be flagging duplicate persons as ''people with the same names are common''.

Rejected as we mentioned this as planned enhancement.

5454 is the same issue.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Realodex should allow multiple clients with the same name

Since Realodex is meant for real estate professionals to manage clients, I believe that the constraint of only having 1 client with a name (mentioned in the UG) is a feature flaw. For example: a user could have 2 clients with the name Roy Lim (an arbitrary common name).

As such, this implementation decision would inconvenience users, and I believe it is a feature flaw.

Relevant UG Screenshot

image.png

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#5361] [original labels: severity.Medium type.FeatureFlaw]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

image.png

We will reject this bug as it been mentioned in planned enhancement that we intend to improve this aspect by checking more fields.

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.Rejected`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]