search

zacwong2151 / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Duplicate persons added to the lovebook #1

Open zacwong2151 opened 9 months ago

zacwong2151 commented 9 months ago

image.png

The app recognises 2 persons, John doe and John Doe, with all other fields the same, as separate persons. In a real life scenario, this is probably not the case as very likely these 2 people are the same persons, and that the user has mistyped the capital letter for one or more of the words. Thus, this current implementation of the app would be a feature flaw as duplicate persons may be added to the database, unbeknownst to the user.

nus-se-script commented 9 months ago

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Names of dates should check for case sensitivity, for example a data name John should be same as john

As mentioned in the title, similar names that have different case sensitivity should be counted as the same person.

Possible scenario:

  1. I want to go out on a date with a person name Aaron, and so i added him into LoveBook.

  2. After mugging for a day, i forgot if i had added Aaron into the LoveBook and decided to add him again, because i believe the application will flag out to me if i added already. It didnt come to my mind that i could have just used find.

  3. I added aaron again, this time with small caps, and it successfully added.

  4. Now i want to find blind date, aaron will have a dispropotionately higher chance of being selected.

The above is applicable to other dates as well.

The reason why i give medium is because i believe this is something that occurs frequently. For example adding a new person into our phone contacts,

image.png

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#2707] [original labels: type.FunctionalityBug severity.Medium]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

The issue you mentioned contains has the following flaw: If you forgot if Aaron is in the lovebook, u could have used the list/find/filter command to check if he exists.

The name is deemed to be case insensitive unless specified otherwise. This allows flexibility in adding dates, and should not be considered as an issue.

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)

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.Rejected`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** `If you forgot if Aaron is in the lovebook, u could have used the list/find/filter command to check if he exists.` Well what the team suggests is a plausible solution, it is unpractical. The team suggests to check for the existence of a date before you add a date to the LoveBook **everytime you want to add a date to your LoveBook**. However, this will cause much inconvenience to the user as it involves an **additional step** everytime he wants to add a date.
## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FunctionalityBug`] Originally [`type.FeatureFlaw`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** The functionality does work as specified, but it could be better in my opinion. This is because 2 dates named `aaron` with identical age, height and income, is very likely the same date, and a warning should be given to the user, or such an input be blocked (up to the team)