Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Command summary table can be clearer

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.

---

Here, i/NRIC is indicated for add and view, but edit INDEX is not indicated. Inconsistent especially between view and edit, since both i/NRIC and INDEX should serve the same purpose of identifying the contact to view/edit.

This makes it confusing for the user, especially since one would expect to edit the same way you view, or add a contact. Since this is not the case, it is better to be explicit with the indexing method.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2122S2/pe-interim#1864] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Agree that the command tables can be clearer to differentiate the use of referencing parameters i/NRIC and INDEX.

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: The original bug which was accepted was between the Patient Specific Commands: Edit and Patient Specific Commands: View, where view description includes the contact-identifier, whereas edit does not.

In the bug report that was flagged as duplicate, the issue is between Patient Specific Commands: View and Contact Specific Commands: View. Both are similar commands by nature, yet the patient view includes the NRIC identifier parameter, whereas contact view does not include the NRIC identifier parameter.

Excluding this bug report would've meant that this issue would've gone unnoticed, since it does not overlap with the original bug at all.

from pe.