Open thatseant opened 4 years ago
We agree that we should have perhaps handled the negative numbers for repeat more differently. When we programmed this feature, we had the assumption that users who key in an integer with a number of zero or lower will mean setting the event to not repeat at all. Nevertheless, we should have either documented this behaviour on the user guide or have an exception or message indicating this behaviour to the user.
Team chose [response.NotInScope
]
Reason for disagreement: A situation that should have triggered an error instead caused unpredictable and unexpected behaviour not mentioned in documentation. A user might think that such a command removes the last 3 repeated occurence. Instead, all repeated occurences are removed.
An error should be shown if user enters negative count for repeat command.
Instead, unpredictable behaviour occurs as event is no longer a repeated event.