Open striris opened 2 years ago
striris
commented
2 years ago 
if lily and kite borrow 10 each of item5, lily lost 10 of item5, she cannot only report her own loss. Instead, the item5 entry is deleted, even when kite still holds 10 of item5. This might lead user to abuse the system and take responsibility for other people's loss. Or couldn't even return the item5 because the entry is deleted.
nus-se-script
commented
2 years ago No details provided by team.
[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]
Wrong usage of lost command
For the lost command in this application, it seems to delete the whole entry in my inventory.
Instead, we perhaps you can allow the user to report a quantity for lost instead of deleting the whole entry.
[original: nus-cs2113-AY2122S2/pe-interim#1142] [original labels: type.FeatureFlaw severity.High]
[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]
I explained in my PPP why we chose to delete an item from the inventory entirely whenever any quantity of an item is marked lost:
This function is consistent with what was described of the return command in the UG, which is that lost command would delete the entire item from the inventory (hence we responded "Not in Scope"):
This was an issue we considered, but we realised it was too complicated to solve within the time frame as it affects all borrowings, past present and future. Hence, we chose to simply delete the entire item from the inventory whether only a partial quantity was lost or not. Nevertheless, we will consider solving this for future implementations.
The severity of this bug was downgraded from High to Medium as this doesn't render the program virtually unusable. The user can just add the item again, this time with reduced quantity.
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]
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
Reason for disagreement: It creates significant issues for users and may cause a lot of responsibility conflicts.
Team chose [type.FeatureFlaw]
Originally [type.FunctionalityBug]
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
Team chose [severity.Medium]
Originally [severity.High]
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
