Open tayjerom opened 1 week ago
The proper format of dd/mm/yyyy is indicated in both UG and DG with regard to input date formatting. While it is a good to have for it to be shown in the command summary, it is already present in UG.
Team chose [response.NotInScope
]
Reason for disagreement: As a tester (end-user), I believe the criticality of a [Command Summary] section being to provide quick reference for users.
If expected date format is different from example shown in other section such as one i faced while using this application [YYYY-MM-DD] vs [DD/MM/YYYY], this inconsistency will greatly cause confusion to users.
Even though the team stated that date format is mentioned elsewhere in UG, it is still crucial to indicate in Command Summary to avoid unnecessary user mistakes, which makes this a valid improvement to be consider and definitely not out of scope.
Since documentation prompt date format (shown in screenshot) as "2024-11-11", but date format accepted is in "dd/mm/yyyy". Would recommend to indicate in UG command summary that date format expected is "dd/mm/yyyy".