search

papataco14 / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Overzealous input validation for phone numbers #7

Open papataco14 opened 11 months ago

papataco14 commented 11 months ago

image.png

The app doesn't allow for spacing between phone numbers. It should allow for this as non trivial amount of users might want to type and store like this for better readability.

soc-se-bot commented 11 months ago

Team's Response

Similar issue to #2983. We agree that there can be more flexibility in phone number validation. However, we think that the severity should be Low and not Medium as we consider the 8-digit limitation to be a minor inconvenience.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

Phone number restricted to 8 digits

Phone number is restricted to 8 digits. However, I dont think the UG mentioned that this app is catered to specifically singapore users. Hence, users for eg having thai telephone number may not be able to use this application. Especially when foreigners may need a quick check for their teeth in emergencies.

image.png

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#4293] [original labels: severity.Low type.FunctionalityBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

Thank you for the report. Our group designed the app to specifically target dental clinic administration assistants in the Singapore context, hence, we decided to go with strictly 8 digits for Phone numbers. We do admit that we could have made this clearer in the User Guide and that the implementation could have been better by allowing more flexible input.

We categorised this as a FeatureFlaw rather than FunctionalityBug as the functionality (phone number input) is working as currently designed (accepting 8 digits), but the design itself does not accommodate international use cases (longer inputs or space in inputs), which is why it is a flaw in the feature rather than the functionality.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]