sdevih
commented
4 months ago Team's Response
From the user's point of view, "duplicate" logs are categorised as expected and correct behaviour.
Why? This is because the specificity of logs are limited to date (and not time). Realistically, it is not uncommon to expect multiple logs on the same day. According to the target audience of volunteer managers, the same pair of befriendee and volunteer can go for the same activity on the same day for the same duration in real-life.
Consider this example: The same pair can separately meet for meals for 2 hours on the same day (for lunch and dinner). Since remarks and titles are optional, using some default template kept in a text editor, they could have the same title "Met for Meal", with no remarks, and the same duration of 2 hours, with naturally the same date. To disallow such "duplicate" logs occuring on the same day would be overly constrictive and hurt the usability of our product in such a use case.
As such, "duplicate" logs here can be expected and it is fact normal and correct behaviour expected by this target user of volunteer managers. This is something that we deliberated and intended on in our early stages of planning, which resulted in the difference in duplication detection between logs and persons.
Nonetheless, we do acknowledge this to be a valid concern. Under the premise that in the future a field in a log is added to indicate the start time, such that logs on the same day can be differentiated, support for duplicate logs would definitely become relevant and required in future versions.
As such, we find good value in testers' view on this, and categorise this report as not in scope.
Duplicate status (if any):
--
Summary: Logs with the exact same details can be added to ElderScrolls.
Steps to reproduce:
Improvement suggestion: Maybe this could be disallowed? Since person already has duplicate detection.
Screenshot:
[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#584] [original labels: severity.Low type.FeatureFlaw]