Use Case Bug delete_marked differ from UG

[EltonGohJH]

UG does not not have restriction that delete_marked will not work when filtered. It does work when filtered too. So extension 2a is invalid.

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

When we mention "The list of applicants is empty" in extension 2a, we refer to when the application has zero users. As such, the extension is valid as it is how the application would respond in that scenario.

Moreover, use cases should not contain implementation details, it should be expected that the "list" of applicants does not refer to the displayed list of applicants/filtered list of applicants, so the tester's interpretation of delete_marked being used when filtered should not be assumed.

Hence, as it is an interpretation error on the tester's part, we will be rejecting this issue.

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: You stated that the "list" of applicants does not refer to the displayed list of applicants. Extension 1a tells you that you can find the people after listing.
Consider this case. The list has 10 people after you follow step 1. You do 1a (UC6 find). After finding no people , Recruitln displays no people on the list (step 2) and should terminate at step 2a (but your actual feature will work even if find shows no people). So your use case 2a is invalid. Find extension implies that in step 2 it refers to the displayed list and not actual number of applicants.

Thus, I disagree that I intepreted wrongly as if it is not a displayed list of applicants then the find use case does not make sense.

---

❓ Issue severity

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: It is not a cosmetic bug.

---