Inaccurate command response when dealing with duplicate/non-existent payments

[mongj]

In the app, if a user attemps to run unmarkpaid on a student with no payment, the command feedback will still indicate that the person's payment has been unmarked. Having the same feedback for when a payment is actually unmarked vs when there is no payment to unmark may be confusing for the users.

The expected behavior would be to let the user know that the student has no payment to be unmarked.

The same issue also applies to marking duplicate payments. If a payment has already been marked, running markpaid will appear to indicate that the payment has just been marked though that is not the case

The expected behavior would be to let the user know that the student's payment for that month has already been marked.

[soc-pe-bot]

Team's Response

We believe that this behaviour does not affect core functionality The reported issue relates to the wording of feedback messages for actions that do not actually impact the application's underlying data. Whether a payment is already marked or unmarked, the core functionality of the application remains unaffected. The commands still execute correctly, and there is no disruption to the intended purpose of tracking payments.

In addition, feedback is technically correct

For the unmarkpaid command: The feedback indicates the payment has been unmarked, which is technically accurate, even if the payment was already unmarked. There is no functional error in this behaviour. For the markpaid command: Similarly, indicating that a payment has been marked, even if it was already marked, does not mislead users in any practical way because the end state of the payment remains correct.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

• [ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---