Example usage for edit savings command in UG does not correspond with command format

[genexus85]

As shown in the attached screenshot, the format shown for the edit savings command is different from the example of usage. The example of usage has two additional parameters of "i/" and "d/".

[nus-pe-script]

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

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

two different input types for edit savings

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.

---

in the UG, there are 2 different kinds of inputs for the edit savings command that will confuse the user on which to use.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2113-AY2324S2/pe-interim#2291] [original labels: type.DocumentationBug severity.High]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thank you for bringing the mismatch in the user guide to my attention. I understand the concerns about the incorrect command format example and its classification as a High severity bug. However, I propose that it is more appropriately classified as Medium severity for several reasons:

1. The erroneous command format, while leading to an exception, does not affect the application's core functionality or security—it's specific to one test case.

2. The error is limited to the user guide. Additionally, the correct command syntax is outlined in the guide itself, just above the Example of Usage section, which users can follow for successful operation.

3. The Documentation Guide for the edit savings feature under Section 3.5 has been updated correctly with the appropriate command format.

4. Test cases provided in the Documentation Guide under Appendix F Section 2.5 are accurate and yield the correct expected outcomes when the proper command format is used.

5. Additionally, invoking the menu command in the application provides users with accurate usage information, offering an immediate alternative to the user guide.

Since the cause of the issue can be pinpointed to a documentation inconsistency and considering the edit savings command is correctly documented elsewhere, a reassessment of the severity to Medium is suggested.

These points indicate mitigating circumstances that could justify a reduction in the severity rating from High to a Medium.

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: [replace this with your explanation]

---