Immunity of Planned Enhancement

[JoanneHing]

One of the planned enhancement in the team I tested is improving the error message to be more specific, because currently some command will display the invalid command format and the detail for the command format, which is a bit lengthy, they planned to make the error message more specific.

But I found one of the command that allow user to search within a date range, if the range is invalid, such as end date is earlier than begin date, the command fails with error displaying invalid command format error. They also did not mention anything about that begin date should be before end date in the UG.

Will this bug reported eligible for response.Reject based on the planned enhancement mentioned? As I feel that this is more like failed silently as the command and parameter format is followed, but it fail because the range is invalid.

[damithc]

@JoanneHing Each planned enhancement should be just one thing. If you can show that the said planned enhancement covers multiple things not just the bug you reported, you have a chance to reject the teams response.Reject.

[michaelyql]

@damithc May I clarify if "Make error messages more specific" under the Planned Enhancements is considered as "covering multiple things"?

Given that we were not allowed to fix the error messages during v1.6 due to the feature freeze, my team thought we could put it under planned enhancements

[damithc]

@damithc May I clarify if "Make error messages more specific" under the Planned Enhancements is considered as "covering multiple things"?

Given that we were not allowed to fix the error messages during v1.6 due to the feature freeze, my team thought we could put it under planned enhancements

@michaelyql You can include it under planned enhancements, but you need to be ... umm... more specific i.e., make which error message specific, in which way?