INDEX is not stated to be one-indexed in Archive an appointment section.

[tau-bar]

Expected:

• Expected Behaviour: Index to be stated as one-indexed, like in other sections.

Actual:

• Actual Behaviour: Not stated to be one-indexed.

• Why that severity? Low, as might cause users inconvenience should they try index 0 due to lack of documentation, but rare occurrence.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Go to archive an appointment.
2. Compare to delete a patient.

Screenshots:

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

As stated in the UG Bug guidelines, explanations that are unnecessarily long are considered bugs.

As pointed out by the tester in the second screenshot in his/her/their issue, we have used INDEX before in the Delete Patient section and specified one-index. We find it irrelevant to mention and repeat it again in our UG. Hence, we are rejecting this bug.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: ### Response I disagree. This is not unnecessary repetition. For the developers to put 'one-indexed' at only a few specific functions, it might cause the reader to think that only those functions are one-indexed.

Rationale

1. The developer team claims that the omission of the 'one-indexed' was to prevent unnecessary repetition. However, they did not just put 'one-indexed' once, they put it multiple times in different functions (shown in evidence section). Therefore, this is not an omission of unnecessary details, as they did repeat it multiple times, and did not put it in only some functions.

2. The developer team specifically put one-indexed at only a few functions, and not at others. While it might just be an oversight by the writers, as a reader, this could cause me an inconvenience, as I might think that only a few functions are one-indexed. It is not stated anywhere in the UG that all the functions are one-indexed, therefore it is not unreasonable for me to think that only a few functions are one-indexed. As mentioned in the module website, this causes a minor inconvenience to readers, therefore this is classified as a severity.Low bug.

Evidence

Explanation for what constitutes a severity.Low bug:

Example 1 of non-omission:

Example 2 of non-omission:

Example 3 of non-omission:

---