Name truncated in bookings view

[nus-pe-bot]

Steps to reproduce

1. Add some venue
2. Add a person with name Michael B Jordan
3. Add a person with name Michael Bryant
4. Book venue under Michael B Jordan and book the same venue under Michael Bryant with neighboring time slot.

Expected results

• I should be able to distinguish which Michael booked the venue at which time slow.

Actual results

• Because of the name truncation, I am unable to distinguish between the 2 Michaels.
• I do understand the constraint that the box is quite small, but currently there is no way for me to check which Michael booked what slot. Perhaps the box can be expanded?

Screenshots

Explanation

• Labeled as medium, since this may cause occasional inconveniences for a RC4 manager when handling bookings from people with similar names.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2223S1/pe-interim#3113] [original labels: severity.Medium type.FunctionalityBug]}

[nealetham]

Team's Response

Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledges that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

However, after much deliberation, we think that the severity should be downgraded for the following two reasons:

1. It is unlikely that two residents with the similar names would book two consecutive time slots on the same day.
2. With respect to booking and unbooking venues, in a real scenario, the resident would approach the user with the necessary details such as their names, and the time slots that they would like to book/unbook. This would remove any ambiguity on the user's part.

Because of these two reason, we feel that it is very unlikely to affect normal operations.

Additionally, we also think that the bug type should be changed to FeatureFlaw. This is because:

1. Despite its limitations, the table does work as intended in allowing the user to view the timeslots that are booked, as mentioned in the screenshot in our UG.

2. You also mentioned that perhaps we could allow the boxes to be expanded to allow the user to view the names, which seems to be a missing functionality that our feature does not provide.

As such, we feel that it should be changed to FeatureFlaw.

We thank you again for pointing this out, and we hope for your understanding!

Duplicate status (if any):

--