Team's Response

The undo command works as expected (able to undo commands that alter the AddressBook) and the correct behaviour of the application is observed. What the tester has observed and experienced is the limit set by the undo command (only able to undo up to last 4 commands) and this is similar to how modern applications handles undo for operations (ie there is a fixed amount of commands that the application is able to undo for).

In addition, for modern applications (for example, IntelliJ) when the undo limit is hit, the application does not show that "the limit is hit" but instead it just shows that there are no further instructions to undo.

This issue should not be considered a High priority as it is unlikely that users would have to undo so many commands at once and should be a Low priority instead as users would still be able to continue using the application without any issues as the undo command still works as intended. The bug type should also be under documentation as a note indicating to the user that there is a limit on how many commands they can undo.

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Thank you for your response.
If it is the case that your application is intended to have an undo limit but this was simply not captured in the documentation then I can understand and accept changing this issue to be a documentation bug.
However, I do not see any premise for outright rejecting the bug report. There was still an oversight here which could result in users mistakenly overstepping the undo limit and not being able to recover, as I did in the example provided.

❓ Issue type

Team chose [type.DocumentationBug]
Originally [type.FunctionalityBug]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

❓ Issue severity

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Thank you for your response.
While not explicitly stated, I believe your reasoning for lowering the severity all the way down to low is because there are examples of other applications out there with undo limits as well. However, these applications have far greater undo limits. Intellij itself as an undo limit of 100, which can also be increased by the user (Source: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25014049/intellij-undo-history-size-not-much#:~:text=In%20any%20case%3A%20if%20Local,is%20100%20steps%20by%20default). I'm not saying that your application should also have a customizable undo limit of at least 100 as your application is of a far simpler nature than Intellij, but I think 4 is still low and unforgiving enough of a number that would cause inconvenience to some if not many users.

The extent of the inconvenience caused in my above point may be arguable, but what I believe is not arguable is that in the present state of your application and its documentation, many users such as myself will be misled into believing there is no undo limit (or at least a very high undo limit) and will almost certainly run into issues because of this. Another way to frame this is that if you were to continue working on this application, you would definitely have to update the documentation to reflect the undo limit, and it would definitely also cross your mind that the undo limit should also be increased if you want to scale the application. Hence, I don't think this issue warrants a low severity. I can however agree that medium severity would be more justifiable as this bug does not render the app unusable.

from pe.