Open thewongdylan opened 2 months ago
Thank you for raising this. This behaviour is intended to give flexibility to the user, which aligns with module expectation, and would not cause inconvenience for the user in most cases. However, we believe the issue here is in the use of our word "past" in the user guide (shown in the screenshot provided), which might have given off the impression that we validate the visit date. Therefore, we have decided to change the bug type to documentation, but will still accept this as a bug.
Team chose [type.DocumentationBug
]
Originally [type.FunctionalityBug
]
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
Description Visit dates added under![Screenshot 2024-04-19 at 4.50.16 PM.png](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thewongdylan/pe/main/files/cefcacba-e230-4456-aa52-48dc93aedd7f.png)
d/DATE_OF_BIRTH
using theaddv
andeditv
commands accept dates after today's date, despite the UG stating that visits are supposed to be records of a patient's past attendance at the clinic, implying that visits must be in the past while appointments are in the future.Steps to reproduce
addv 3 d/20/04/2025 c/afterToday v/Low
Expected behaviour The app should reject the input date as it is after today's date (19/04/2024)
Actual behaviour The app saves the input date despite it being in the future.![Screenshot 2024-04-19 at 4.52.38 PM.png](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thewongdylan/pe/main/files/993151ed-437e-4683-9493-e0bb2d6d8dd3.png)
Reason for severity Affects usage since there is now overlap between visits and appointments.