search

peiran18 / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

UG does not mention anything about duplicate interviews / companies / person #7

Open peiran18 opened 10 months ago

peiran18 commented 10 months ago

It can be very confusing when the user tries to add interviews / companies / person and receive an error message saying that it "already exists", but are not given further instructions. I had to then trial and error before realising for instance person only compared between the name field, and it is considered the same person if they have the exact same name. Many people can have the same name and trying to input two different people with the same names but not knowing why it is failing can be quite frustrating. Would be nice to include a definition of duplicate interviews / companies / person in the UG.

nus-pe-bot commented 10 months ago

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Lack of explanation on uniqueness in contacts, companies and internships in UG

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.

Description

The application currently validates that you cannot have duplicate contacts, companies, and internships on the basis of the names of these entities. However, the UG does not seem to explicitly define this criteria.

Reason for severity

This may hinder the frequently, especially with contacts due to the fact that your target audience may have many Singaporean names where the first name and last name are the same. For instance, a user might want to add 3 Jerome Tan contacts in their application. They would then have to infer from the error message that the application requires you to change some fields, and eventually change the name. Though the consequences are not high, the frequency might render the severity as Medium.

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#1481] [original labels: type.DocumentationBug severity.Medium]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

We would first like to address "They would then have to infer from the error message that the application requires you to change some fields, and eventually change the name" - our error message is very straightforward that the "This person already exists in the address book".

We agree that we should be written in our UG that we detect duplicates. However, we believe that this is of low severity, as duplicate names are really not that common in Singapore (e.g. surname, chinese name differs a lot), hence we believe that not including it does not affect a majority of readers.

And users can easily add their own identifiers (e.g. "John Doe from CS" and "John Doe from Poly").

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`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** I think that "This person already exists in the address book" is not clear enough as an error message as it could refer to another person with the same name, same number, and same email, or just another person with the same name (there's no way for the user to quickly determine the error), and it is completely unmentioned in the UG, causing a lot of inconvenience to users. Since this error can be faced quite frequently, it deserves to be of medium severity.