nus-cs2103-AY2425S1 / pe-dev-response

0 stars 0 forks source link

Inaccurate validation message for editing person with phone number shorter/longer than 8 digits #2914

Open nus-se-script opened 1 week ago

nus-se-script commented 1 week ago

Expected Behavior

When editing a person with a phone number shorter/longer than 8 digits, the error message should warn users about not satisfying the 8 digit count.

Current Behavior

Editing a person with a phone number shorter/longer than 8 digits results in error message that states that "Phone numbers should only contain numbers, and it should be at least 3 digits long." This is misleading and inconsistent with the requirement stated in the UG, which could cause users to be unclear on how to rectify their command entry.

Steps to Reproduce

Suppose there exists a person in the list.

  1. Enter edit 1 p/6581248677

  2. View error message in the terminal

Screenshot 2024-11-15 at 5.23.02 PM.png

Context

Since the target audience is not limited to Singaporeans, phone numbers should also be flexible for different countries. Hence, people might want to add country codes, causing phone numbers to exceed 8 digits.


[original: nus-cs2103-AY2425S1/pe-interim#3978] [original labels: severity.Medium type.FeatureFlaw]

yyueyii commented 1 week ago

Team's Response

Thank you for the feedback. We acknowledge this bug, however we believe that it should be of severity low as we simply did not edit the usage message to reflect that the phone numbers should contain 8 digits. Since the app is meant for users in Singapore (as evidenced by localized app name and addressed in a different response), the expected inputs are 8-digit phone numbers, which our app correctly checks for. The erroneous usage message may cause confusion, but does not affect the functionality of our app. Furthermore, our user guide states the correct phone number constraints. Hence, this is a minor concern and not a critical bug that disrupts any functionalities and it should be a documentation bug.

Duplicate status (if any):

Duplicate of #2904