search

siqirua / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Improper error message when the index is 0 or negative integer #8

Open siqirua opened 9 months ago

siqirua commented 9 months ago

image.png According to the UG, the error message is expected to be "The person index provided is invalid" since it is not within the range and it is an integer, but in fact it returns "Invalid command format!" when the index is 0.

soc-se-bot commented 9 months ago

Team's Response

It was mentioned in the UG that the error message “Invalid command format! …” will be issued when the index is not correctly specified as an integer.

We have also defined index under the fields table where it is specified to be a positive integer of the range (1, 2, 3, …, 2147483647).

Additionally, we also have a planned enhancement regarding command-specific error messages. Hence we plan to be able to receive the command of “dp 0” and give a more accurate error message “The index should be a positive integer.”

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

Reason for disagreement: From what I understand from your DG Planned Enhancement, what you meant by command-specific error message is to explain the error message under the context of a specific command. However, this bug is due to a misclassification of the error, which I believe should not be considered in 'Not In Scope'.

(Other reason you may refer to the explanation below for the severity)

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Low`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** It is true that it was mentioned in the UG that the error message “Invalid command format! …” will be issued when the index is not correctly specified as an integer. My point is that however, when inputting with 0 or negative integer, which are also integers, it still shows this error message, which could confuse the users since if they refer to the UG, the UG will guide them to check if the index is an integer, which in fact it is. According to the UG, this should be fall under invalid index problem since 0 is not in the valid range, which is supposed to show another error message. In addition, since fixing this error misclassification bug needs to adjust your logic flow to return an appropriate error message, I don't think this will be a cosmetic change, hence, I believe it is reasonable to give a low severity instead of very low.