Two buyer in contacts can have same email

[bbryant824]

Two buyer in contacts can have same email

Description

Two buyers with different name but same email can be added to the contact which does not make sense as in this case, emailing one would lead to emailing the other, agents would be unsure of which person he is contacting in this case, might lead to errors. The addressbook contact feature is flawed, its function fails to store people properly.

Steps to reproduce

1. after launching the app, type in command box:
   buyer n/Bobby p/91124444 e/bobby123@gmail.com to add the first person

2. then type
   buyer n/Alex p/91124444 e/bobby123@gmail.com to add the second person

Expected:
Error message: Alex should not be added as he should not have same email as Bobby

Actual:
New buyer added: Alex.
Phone number: 91124444 and Email: bobby123@gmail.com

Improvements

Ensure email as a factor to differentiate people in the contact book.

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

Behaviour is caused by the same issue of checking for duplicate persons

The 'Original' Bug

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

Two people in contacts can have same number

Two buyer in contacts can have same number

Description

Two buyers with different names but same number can be added to the contact which does not make sense as in this case, calling one would lead to calling the other, agents would be unsure of which person he is calling in this case. The addressbook contact feature is flawed, its function fails to store people properly.

Steps to reproduce

1. after launching the app, type in command box:
   buyer n/Bobby p/91124444 e/bobby123@gmail.com to add the first person

2. then type
   buyer n/Alex p/91124444 e/bobby124@gmail.com to add the second person

Expected:
Error message: Alex should not be added as he should not same number as Bobby

Actual:
New buyer added: Alex.
Phone number: 91124444 and Email: bobby123@gmail.com

Improvements

Ensure number as a factor to differentiate people in the contact book.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2425S1/pe-interim#3719] [original labels: severity.Medium type.FeatureFlaw]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Hi there!

Thank you for raising this issue and providing detailed steps to reproduce it. We understand your concern about potential confusion when multiple buyers share the same phone number.

However, after reviewing the feature, we believe the current implementation is intentional. There is a valid scenario where two individuals might share a phone number, such as:

Property sellers from the same agency sharing a company phone number while having unique names and emails.

Seller 1: n/Bobby p/91124444 e/bobby@company.com (Warton's Condo Seller)
Seller 2: n/Alex p/91124444 e/alex@company.com (Jenny's Condo Seller)

Preventing duplicates solely based on phone numbers could inadvertently block this legitimate use case. There are other features available that a user can use to differentiate two different people (i.e. tags, remarks, name).

We have intentionally provided this flexibility to empower users to decide what works best for their specific needs and scenarios.

Hence, we do not consider this a bug but rather an intentional feature to accommodate such scenarios. We recommend utilizing the available features, such as tags or remarks, to differentiate between individuals if needed.

Thank you for understanding, and we appreciate your efforts to help us improve our product. If you have further suggestions, feel free to share them!

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: Thank you for pointing this out.

However, since number and email are two different fields and very different meanings in the addressbook. Even though the problems are similar in terms of them all related to the fields of a person, the context is very different, so it is not a duplicate of the other problem.

---

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Thank you for your response on the clarification.

However, I believe this problem is caused by the featureflaw of differentiating people in the addressbook not by indexing but by purely names which is problematic. It is strange for 2 people to share the same email and I find this as a feature flaw.

I think that the main function of addressbook is to differentiate who you are contacting, assigning one email to one person each to avoid confusion. Rather, if two people are under a company with a company's common email, it should instead be created as one company name that has the company email instead in the adressbook, additional information such as for eg. Alex and Bobby are under this company for contacts can be added. Such implementation is more logical and less problematic.

Thus, rather than rejecting this problem, I believe you have a point too as stated on top but the featureflaw is still present as I think current implementation is not as ideal. I think problem should instead be not.in.scope as it is indeed a feature flaw that can be addressed and looked into for further improvements in the future.

Thank you.

---