soc-se-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
The edit feature is working as intended. The reason why we chose to replace it with a new food is because we want to allow users to edit entries that were added in the past.
This cannot be done with the add/delete commands which can only 'edit' entries that were added on the same day you are editing.
If the UG was unclear about the implementation, please raise this as a Documentation Bug, thank you.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Thanks for explaining, I agree that it makes sense for users to edit past entries.
Perhaps this should be cited as a documentation bug of severity medium. Instead of "Edits an existing entry’s food information.", it could have been phrased as "Replaces an entry in the entry database". Because you aren't really editing the "food information" (e.g. calories), instead it is the entry being replaced in the list.
I was trying to edit index 2 in this list to have a different food name.
After prompting me to add another food item with name "hello"
It deletes index 2 and replaces it with a new food.
If this is the supposed implementation of edit, then the UG was unable to state clearly how edit works and this function is also quite useless. This can easily be done with the add and delete commands, edit should be meant to edit a part of the original entry and it doesnt make sense to let the user add a completely new entry.