marcus-ny / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Add command does not allow duplicate names (even though email and phone are different) #6

Open marcus-ny opened 4 months ago

marcus-ny commented 4 months ago

Description: The add command does not allow for duplicate names to be added into the contact book

Steps to reproduce:

  1. add n/Blake p/88887777 email/blake@yahoo.com
  2. add n/Blake p/00009999 email/blake2@yahoo.com

Expected behaviour: Both contacts should be added to the list since the emails and phone numbers are different.

Actual behaviour: The second Blake cannot be added to the contact.

Screenshots:

Screenshot 2024-04-19 at 4.34.22 PM.png

Notes: The unique name constraint is already mentioned in the UG. This is more of a minor feature flaw since in the real world, although quite rare, people can have identical names even though they are two different people. When managing many clients, such a scenario may happen and thus, the app should account for this behaviour and allow duplicate names to be accepted.

nus-se-bot commented 4 months ago

Team's Response

This comes under our planned enhancements. Our plans include: Change the restrictions on the regex for the Name class to allow for more flexible names Which will solve the issue mentioned here

The 'Original' Bug

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

Names overly restrictive

Only allowing alpha numeric characters in names is overly restrictive, many legal names exist where '/' are needed. some non alphanumeric characters should be accepted.

Steps to reproduct:

  1. Run in CLI ' add n/John s/o Doe p/98765432 e/johnd@example.com a/311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 k/Joe s/o Doe d/Has a history of memory loss t/mentalIllness t/owesMoney'

Expected output: User added

Actual output: Error non alphanumeric names

Screenshot 2024-04-19 at 5.08.46 PM.png


[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#1534] [original labels: type.FunctionalityBug severity.Low]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

In our DG, we mentioned that this is a known issue and we are planning to implement this functionality in future iterations. Hence, we would like to reject this bug.

image.png

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]
## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FunctionalityBug`] Originally [`type.FeatureFlaw`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]