nus-pe-bot
commented
2 years ago Team's Response
Thank you for the response :) As mentioned in UG, we use ID as the identifier and not the name/phone parameters. There is no restriction by the module that we have to follow the name/phone parameter as the identifier, so we are free to exercise our own design choice. For example, two separate patients can coincidentally have the same name. We do not wish to implement incomplete duplicate detection algorithms and hence chose to implement the current design.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Hi guys thanks for the response. I believe duplicates could pose a threat to the application. Users typically recognise a doctor or patient by name not by an arbitrary ID number. While there could be a case where multiple doctors have the same name or even department, they surely cannot all have the same phone number. I believe the accidental addition of duplicates could go unnoticed, which would result in the referencing of different instances of the same doctor. This implementation is not unreasonable as it is not difficult to implement a check for identical parameters. Unfortunately, I believe that this itself is an incomplete duplicate detection algorithm, as it doesn't consider legitimate duplicate cases.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.Low]
Originally [severity.High]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
Doctors with identical names (case sensitive) and details can be added. The add feature does not check for duplicates at all.