nus-se-bot
commented
8 months ago Team's Response
duplicate of issue 614
The 'Original' Bug
[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]
Robust Data Protection section in DG
Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.
I don't think the application does any encryption or backup. This could be a dangerous statement to make if your users rely on it to keep data encrypted and backed up.
[original: nus-cs2113-AY2324S1/pe-interim#844] [original labels: severity.Medium type.DocumentationBug]
Their Response to the 'Original' Bug
[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]
Thank you for your response.
Will take note of this, and make the necessary improvements in the future.This was supposed to be a future implementation, but it looks like we didn't label them clearly.
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)
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.NotInScope`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:**  ------  ------ Such a documentation bug cannot be regarded as not in scope as it is literally documented under the project scope section in the DG, saying it is under the project scope. Rectifying this issue is also clearly to be of relatively high importance since such misguidance to users can cause inconveniences when users rely on the program for data security as described by the other tester of the duplicate entry. While the actual data protection **feature** may arguably be pushed to future iteration, we are dealing with the **documentation flaw** here which needs to be rectified ASAP and is definitely in scope.
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Low`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:**  ------  ------ Since it is highlighted in the DG under Project Scope that the program supports robust data protection, users will most likely trust the documentation and only realise the data protection feature is highly limited through actual usage of the program, which would undoubtedly bring inconvenience to users seeking to safeguard their data. Hence this flaw cannot be regarded as a purely cosmetic issue as it clearly affects user usage of the program in the form of misguided value proposition.
Based on the data saved in txt files, and the earlier reported issues, there does not seem to be evidence of "advanced" encryption of data, and data is easily manipulatable to cause errors, suggesting this is not very suitable to be one of the value propositions for the app.