search

shermannws / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Using name as an unique identifier might not be the best #2

Open shermannws opened 2 years ago

shermannws commented 2 years ago

[Description] User of the same name cannot be added into IW.

[Steps to Reproduce]

  1. add n/John p/123 e/a@a.com g/4.50 i/NTU c/Computer Science y/06/2025 j/Software Engineer
  2. add n/John p/123 e/a@a.com g/5.00 i/NTU c/Computer Science y/06/2025 j/Software Engineer

[Expected] Expected IW to be using email or phone number as unique identifier instead since it is common for individuals to have the same name.

[Actual] Error message of "This applicant already exists in Intern Watcher" thrown.

[Remarks] While this has already been mentioned in the UserGuide, from a feature perspective, more detailed consideration can be put in place to decide what is being used as unqiue identifier.

nus-pe-bot commented 2 years ago

Team's Response

This issue also recommends using additional fields to verify for non-duplicates.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Duplicate detection: two person with slightly different name but same arttibutes are not detected.

Steps to reproduce: type add n/John Doe p/98765432 e/johnd@example.com g/4.50 i/NTU c/Computer Science y/06/2025 j/Software Engineer a/INTERVIEWED s/Java s/Python and then type add n/John Doe NTU p/98765432 e/johnd@example.com g/4.50 i/NTU c/Computer Science y/06/2025 j/Software Engineer a/INTERVIEWED s/Java s/Python

Expected: since these two persons have exactly same phone, same email, etc, the software should detect this kind of duplication and give warning.

Actual: These two persons are added to the list.

Screenshots:

image.png

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2122S1/pe-interim#1729] [original labels: severity.Low type.FeatureFlaw]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Since applicants can share the same email address(such as in the same organisation) and share the same phone number (office/home phone), we decided not to use other fields to verify duplicate applicants.

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]

Reason for disagreement: I do not agree with the response as thie rebuttal is inconsistent with their DG and I still feel that is a valid issue to the feature. According to their DG, the considerations that went into implementing the add command did not say anything aligned to the team's response to the bug. This makes their response seem like a mere rebuttal to this issue and not something that went into consideration when developing IW.

From a feature perspective, I would still think that the need to effectively and accurate identfy individuals is important and the team's decision for the choice that is "easy to implement" (quoted from their DG) is something that have compromised the usage of the application. I would kindly hope to still seek for this to be reported as severity.Low and type.FeatureFlaw.