search

s-kybound / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Duplicate entry due to recruiter information and company is not detected #7

Open s-kybound opened 1 year ago

s-kybound commented 1 year ago

image.png

In the user guide, it is described that an entry with the same recruiter information and company will be considered a duplicate entry.

However, on entering the following commands consecutively

add c/Tokyo University r/student s/PA d/28-02-2023 n/arai fujio p/12345678 e/test@example pr/HIGH

add c/Tokyo University r/professor s/PA d/28-02-2023 n/arai fujio p/12345678 e/test@example pr/HIGH

Both entries are accepted.

As I suspect this is an issue with clarity of the UG, it has been reported as a documentation bug.

Perhaps it would be better to explicitly state the terms considered under duplicate entry checking instead of saying company and recruiter information, as it may be misleading, as users may confuse the word company to mean company name.

soc-pe-bot commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

We will be marking this issue as a duplicate issue of #3201, as this issue is also about the clarity of company's information in UG not specifying company's name, application role and deadline, though it could be easily inferred from our UI on the Company Detail Panel.

However, we will be lowering the severity of this bug to Low, as it is only a minor inconvenience to the users, and does not affect their understanding of what a duplicate company is, which was explicitly stated in a paragraph before this example.

image.png

The 'Original' Bug

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

Documentation error example does not match scenario described

In the part of the user guide describing the handling of duplicates, the scenario to be tested is of a company with the same company and recruiter information.

image.png

However, the image used does not properly reflect that, as the image shows an error stemming from identical company, role and deadline instead.

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#4539] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thank you for pointing out this issue. We acknowledge that we could have been clearer in our description in the UG, though readers could have inferred what company information was, based on our UI. We will accept this issue.

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]