Hard to understand part of the FAQs UG

[tjingsheng]

Q6: Should a person of higher priority be assigned a higher or lower priority number? A: A person of a higher priority should be assigned a higher priority number. This is because Connectify's rank command ranks people by decreasing numerical values of priority. Hence, a person with priority 10 will be ranked higher (closer to the top of the list) than a person with priority 1. The numerical range for the priority field is 1 to 10.

Q7: What is the numerical range for the priority field? A: Connectify does not restrict the upper boundary of the numerical range for the priority field. This is so that a person who has ranked contacts of the highest priority at point in time wouldn't need to rerank their contacts if they wish to add a new contact of an even higher priority in the future. However, the numerical value for priority cannot be a negative number.

Note sure what are the limitations of the prioirity field after reading this two FAQs

[nus-pe-script]

Team's Response

The line "The numerical range for the priority field is 1 to 10" was accidentally added, thus leading to the contradiction.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

No response for large priority number

The only obvious place mentioning the range of priority is here.

Q6: Should a person of higher priority be assigned a higher or lower priority number? A: A person of a higher priority should be assigned a higher priority number. This is because Connectify's rank command ranks people by decreasing numerical values of priority. Hence, a person with priority 10 will be ranked higher (closer to the top of the list) than a person with priority 1. The numerical range for the priority field is 1 to 10.

The command:

addPerson n/John Doe17 p/98765432 e/johndoe@example.com a/311, Clementi Ave 2, #02-25 c/ 1 t/lover pr/99999999999999 t/priorityhigh

The Response:

Nothing happens

The Terminal:

The Possible Expected Result:

This is a flaw that causes occasional inconvenience to some users when they intentionally give a high priority number to a person, suppose, if they love them a lot. They can continue to use the product.

EDIT:

I read this later on^. but still a bug nonetheless

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#2339] [original labels: type.FunctionalityBug severity.Medium]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

Thank you for the feedback! Firstly, we have accidentally added the line "The numerical range for priority is from 1 to 10" as we did not want to overly restrict user input to provide more flexibility. However, we accept that overly large numbers were not allowed. Yet, we believe that this bug should be of Severity.Low due to the following reasons.

1. This is an extremely unlikely input that a user would provide for priority unless the user is trying to sabotage our application.

2. If the issue is due to the specificity of our error message, this is an area which we plan on improving in future, as specified under our Planned Enhancements section in the DG.

Conclusively, we believe that this bug is a documentation bug due to the fact that we accidentally included the line which incorrectly specified that the numerical range for priority is from 1 to 10 as we did not plan on restricting the numerical range for priority! Hope this clarifies issues associated with the bug that you have raised!

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: The issue is that there is a contratiction in two sentences in the UG. This affects the readibility of the UG. "The numerical range for the priority field is 1 to 10." VS "Connectify does not restrict the upper boundary of the numerical range for the priority field."

The issue marked as a duplicate is highlighting that the errors is no proper error handling implemented for this error.

It is not a duplicate issue

---

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.VeryLow`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]

---