search

winstonlimjy / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Misleading error message #6

Open winstonlimjy opened 2 weeks ago

winstonlimjy commented 2 weeks ago

There is no student with the ID A9999999A. However, when I tried to markAtt n/A9999999A c/T0000. It says that the tutorial class T0000 does not exist of that the student is not in the given tutorial class.

In fact, the T0000 class exists as seen in the image below, and that it is this student does not exist in the database

image.png

nus-se-script commented 2 weeks ago

Team's Response

First, we argue this is a feature flaw as it concerns an error message that is not specific enough.

Screenshot 2024-11-17 at 4.52.13 PM.png

Also, this is response.NotInScope as we follow the bug categorization as shown in the picture above from CS2103T website. Besides that, we do explain in the future implementation in Developer Guide #10 on the more specific handling on the error message of invalid inputs.

Screenshot 2024-11-17 at 4.54.41 PM.png

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

Reason for disagreement: I disagree with this as the instructions from CS2103T website stated that you have to cover both bases to be qualified as NotInScope.

However, in this situation, the student does not exist at all, but the error message specified that either the tutorial class does not exist or the student is not in the tutorial class, which does not cover the base of the student not existing at all.

This is misleading for the user as the user might go searching for the tutorial class again thinking it has not been created but in fact, it was the user not being created.

In addition, the future implementation in the developer guide was targeted at the list-variant commands, and not targetted at adding a student command.

I would like to amend the bug type to Feature Flaw and maintain with severity.Low.

## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FeatureFlaw`] Originally [`type.FunctionalityBug`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]