nus-pe-script
commented
5 days ago Team's Response
Our team think that this is of Response.NotInScope. Firstly, as stated in both UG and DG below:
We have clearly alert the users that repeated marking/unmarking will yield the same results. Hence, the most it can go is a severity.Low label.
Since this does not affect any intended behaviour of the user and might take some time to implement, we skip this feature flaw and decide to implement in coming version.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]
Marked as medium as similar issue appears for many commands where I think a warning should appear.
ATTENDENCE
When marking an attendance for someone who was already marked, I believe there could be a warning to warn of repeated attendance taking, as it might mislead the user into thinking they marked more people than they did.
ASSIGNMENTS
No warning is sent to the user when a user tries to mark a assignment that has already been marked. When the user accidentally marks the same user more than once, it might mislead them into thinking that they have marked more students than they actually did.
Same goes for unmarked.
When a user marks a client that was already marked, same message for both students who are initially marked or unmarked.
When a user marks a client that was already unmarked, same message for both students who are initially marked or unmarked.