Parameters order matters but UG says it does not about pe

[nus-se-script]

Team's Response

Same issue as #1744

The 'Original' Bug

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

Order of parameters needs to be enforced unlike stated

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.

---

Description:

UG stated that order of parameters can be in any order but this is untrue for the edit command.

Edit commands uses a phone or email parameter to identify the customer and edit details using other parameters.

Switching the order of the parameters as stated in the UG resulted in errors.

UG needs to specify the need for these parameters to be strictly infront and not generalised as per other commands.

This command or this note itself is quite crucial when it comes to user's expected behaviour of the app hence i rated it a medium severity

Steps to reproduce:

1. add n/John Doe p/98765432 e/[email protected] m/1 r/5000 t/GOLD t/MEMBER

2. edit r/300 p/98765432

Expected:

Customer with phone number 98765432 's reward to change to 300.

Actual:

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2223S1/pe-interim#2254] [original labels: severity.Medium type.DocumentationBug]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

The Note you highlighted is only applicable for the add command, and not for the edit command, as depicted in the different subsections. Our edit command does require stricter enforcement regarding the ordering since we use phone number or email address as identification, thus it should come first, as shown in our many examples.

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue duplicate status

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: > The Note you highlighted is only applicable for the add command, and not for the edit command, as depicted in the different subsections

The developers seem to have misunderstood where the note about the order of parameters is found. Here's a fuller screenshot:

As can be seen here, the note is found in section 2 and it explains about how command formats are specified in the entire UG, not for the add command in particular (which is section 2.1). Hence the statement that parameter order doesn't matter is incorrect. The instruction should instead have clarified that the edit command is an exception to this rule so as to not confuse the reader.

---

❓ Issue severity

Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.Low]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: This is not just a cosmetic issue as it impacts the user's understanding of how the commands work. This error could cause users to be mistaken that parameters to all commands can be supplied in any order when in fact this is not true

---