Two people can have the exact same details, just different name

[nus-pe-bot]

In the app, it is possible to add 2 people with different names but the other details are all identical. In reality, it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible that 2 job applicants will have the exact same details except for their names, and it is more likely that there was a typo somewhere in the contact details. Hence I feel the intended behavior should be that if the phone number has been used by someone, even if a different name puts that as their phone number, it should block the usage and say "The phone number is already used, try a different one".

Steps to replicate:

1. Run the command "add n/New Guy p/91234567 e/newguy@gmail.com a/Real Address #12-34 dr/SWE s/Java, Go ex/None st/Applied note/None"
2. Run the command "add n/New Guy23 p/91234567 e/newguy@gmail.com a/Real Address #12-34 dr/SWE s/Java, Go ex/None st/Applied note/None"

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2425S1/pe-interim#3805] [original labels: type.FeatureFlaw severity.Low]}

[Darren-Tung]

Team's Response

Thank you for raising this point. However, we would like to clarify that this behavior aligns with our intended implementation and does not fall under the category of a functionality flaw.

As per the PE Grading Guidelines, under the "Problems caused by extreme user behaviors" section:

The guideline states that problems caused by deliberate sabotage (e.g., entering unrealistic or highly unlikely data) do not qualify as bugs. The given scenario, where two applicants with completely identical details except for their names are added, falls under an edge case that is highly unlikely to occur in reality. It is designed this way to allow flexibility for users who might have legitimate reasons for adding such entries (e.g., identical twins or shared contact details among applicants). Preventing this behavior would risk over-restricting the app’s functionality and might unnecessarily hinder legitimate user workflows. Additionally, the current implementation already ensures that entries with the same phone number and name cannot coexist in the database. The User Guide has clearly documented that duplicate detection is based on the combination of name and phone number, not merely phone number alone. This behavior is intentional and designed to balance usability and practical constraints.

For these reasons, we believe the issue is not a bug but a deliberate design decision, and we respectfully reject this report.

Duplicate status (if any):

--