Open taggyhan opened 2 weeks ago
[IMPORTANT!: Please do not edit or reply to this comment using the GitHub UI. You can respond to it using CATcher during the next phase of the PE]
Our app design focused on phone numbers and names for detecting duplicates. It is possible that two individuals (perhaps a husband and a wife) could have a shared email address, and so this was not included in the definition of a duplicate.
However, detecting possible duplicates caused by typos in phone number (such as this example) was considered out of scope as there were more pressing features. This is a great suggestion that could be implemented in the future.
Team chose [response.NotInScope
]
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your reason]
Description
It is great that duplicate names are rejected --> but with the same logic - shouldn't duplicate emails be rejected as well? Both emails and names should be unique to any one person. Especially in this case where the name, address, email, last visit are similar. The phone number only has one digit different -and this case could very well be a typo that is not safeguarded
Steps to reproduce
Expected behaviour
This person already exists in the address book
Actual behaviour
Person successfully added. New person: John Doe; Phone: 98765232 ; Email: johnd@example.com; Address: John street, block 123, #01-01; Last visit: 06-01-2024