search

rahhulleee / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

7. Not really a bug but room for improvement #7

Open rahhulleee opened 5 months ago

rahhulleee commented 5 months ago

I believe that 2 people can have the same name. I know that you specified this in your UG

image.png

But in real world context, I think its better to have email or phone number as the primary key to determine duplicates, as they are unique and deterministic !

nus-pe-script commented 5 months ago

Team's Response

This highlights the issue of same names shouldn't be flagging duplicate persons as ''people with the same names are common''.

Rejected as we mentioned this as planned enhancement.

5454 is the same issue.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Realodex should allow multiple clients with the same name

Since Realodex is meant for real estate professionals to manage clients, I believe that the constraint of only having 1 client with a name (mentioned in the UG) is a feature flaw. For example: a user could have 2 clients with the name Roy Lim (an arbitrary common name).

As such, this implementation decision would inconvenience users, and I believe it is a feature flaw.

Relevant UG Screenshot

image.png

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#5361] [original labels: severity.Medium type.FeatureFlaw]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

image.png

We will reject this bug as it been mentioned in planned enhancement that we intend to improve this aspect by checking more fields.

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 response Team chose [`response.Rejected`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** Okay, I agree with the severity changes and I agree that you have covered the case that people can have the same names for your future development plans. However in your line "We plan to add more conditions to our duplicate check such as adding more fields", you have to specify which are the fields you're going to include in your duplicate check. In the case of your application, (and in real life context), it is pretty obvious that only phone number and email are the other fields that cannot be duplicate while the others are fine. Hence, the specificity of the fields for your future check matter.
## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FeatureFlaw`] Originally [`type.DocumentationBug`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Medium`] Originally [`severity.VeryLow`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]