Functionality Bug: Behaviour of socialMedia command differs from what is mentioned in the UG

[devivy]

Command: socialMedia 1 cs/alexcells ig/first

Before the command:

After the command:

As mentioned in the UG:

As per the UG guidelines, the socials of the user should be edited to [ig-first], but instead the 1st handle is accepted.

[soc-pe-bot]

Team's Response

Hi tester, we believe that this is a Low DocumentationBug. We have stated above that each contact can have only one social media handle, so users have already been informed against adding multiple social media handles in the same command thus it is rare that they will attempt to add multiple social media handles at once. Therefore, the bug is more accurate to be about which handle is accepted in the event that they do provide more than 1 social media handle.

We believe that this is rare and will only cause a minor inconvenience. If they decide that the handle which is added by default is not the one they want to keep, the user can rerun the command with the desired handle as the only parameter, e.g. socialMedia INDEX PREFIX/DESIRED_HANDLE.

Thank you.

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue type

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Dear Dev Team,

I respectfully disagree with classifying this as a DocumentationBug and would like to explain why this should be considered a FunctionalityBug:

• Code Behaviour Contradicts Specification:

  • Your UG explicitly states it should accept the FIRST handle
  • The code accepts the LAST handle instead
  • This is a direct contradiction between specified and implemented behaviour.
  • Documentation accurately describes the intended behaviour; the code is what's wrong.

• Core Functionality Consideration:

  • Rather than unclear documentation, we have a mismatch between intended and actual behavior
  • The documentation clearly communicates the expected outcome
  • The implementation produces a different result z
  • This suggests a implementation issue rather than a documentation one

• User Experience Impact:

  • Users following the UG precisely will encounter unexpected results
  • This leads to confusion when the system behaves differently than documented
  • While there is a workaround (re-running the command), the root cause is the functionality
  • The unexpected behaviour could lead to incorrect data being stored

Thank you.

---

❓ Issue severity

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---