Missing recommend command in error handling

[xiaohan28]

Catch error to handle invalid recommend command has missing "forearms" command in the format suggested, which was only able to be seen when recommend help command is entered

[nus-se-bot]

[IMPORTANT!: Please do not edit or reply to this comment using the GitHub UI. You can respond to it using CATcher during the next phase of the PE]

Team's Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have reviewed the reported issue regarding the omission of the forearms muscle group in the usage format shown in the error message for the recommend command. After careful consideration, our team has determined that this issue, while valid, has minimal impact on usability and discoverability. Below is our rationale:

Issue Explanation
The issue arises from a missing entry for forearms in the suggested format shown when an invalid recommend command is entered:
Invalid recommend command (e.g. recommend <chest/back/biceps/triceps/legs/shoulders/abs/help>)
However, when the user enters recommend help, forearms is clearly listed as a valid muscle group. The help command provides the complete and accurate list, including forearms.

Why This Is Acceptable

1. Discoverability:

• The recommend help command accurately reflects all supported muscle groups, including forearms.
• Users encountering an error can naturally refer to the help command for clarification, which is a commonly adopted and documented fallback mechanism.
• The inclusion of forearms in the help list ensures discoverability remains intact, and users are not blocked from using the correct command format.

2. Alignment with Guidelines:

• As per the lecture notes, error messages do not need to exhaustively list every argument, especially when complete help is available via a separate command.
• This approach reduces visual clutter and aligns with the principle of keeping error prompts brief while relying on the help feature for detailed guidance.

Justification for NotInScope
This issue constitutes a minor Quality of Life improvement and does not affect core functionality or prevent correct usage of the recommend command.

• The core command still works when recommend forearms is entered.
• The inconsistency lies only in the example text, not in command parsing or execution.

Rationale for Bug Type Reclassification
This issue is currently classified as a FunctionalityBug, but we respectfully propose reclassifying it as a DocumentationBug instead.

• The application functions correctly - entering recommend forearms works as expected.
• The issue lies solely in the error message example text, which omits forearms, not in the behavior or logic of the command.
• According to the lecture definitions, a FunctionalityBug refers to incorrect behavior in how a feature executes, while DocumentationBugs relate to incorrect or incomplete information shown to the user.
• In this case, the incorrect message content is equivalent to user-facing documentation within the app, which falls under the scope of a DocumentationBug.
  Therefore, this issue does not reflect a failure in command execution but rather a minor inconsistency in messaging. We recommend reclassifying this from a FunctionalityBug to a DocumentationBug, and lowering the severity to VeryLow accordingly.

Severity Reclassification
We propose reclassifying this issue from Medium to VeryLow for the following reasons:

• The application functions correctly.
• The correct usage is already documented via recommend help.
• The error message still guides users in the right direction by hinting at valid command patterns.

Conclusion
The omission of forearms in the error message’s example format is a minor documentation detail that does not impact usability or the ability to correctly use the application. The discoverability of all valid muscle groups is fully preserved through the help feature. Therefore, we respectfully propose reclassifying this issue as VeryLow severity and consider it as a potential enhancement for future polish.

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: This issue does not qualify as NotInScope, based on official guidelines:

A bug is NotInScope only if fixing it is less important than work already done and meets at least one of these:

• UG specifies it as not supported or for a future version.

• The user cannot attempt to use the feature, or it fails gracefully.

Neither condition is satisfied here:

The command is implemented, so the feature is in scope.

The omission of "forearms" from the error prompt may mislead users into thinking it is not a supported option, even though it is a valid and fully functional command that simply wasn’t reflected in the error message.

Help command does not justify incorrect in-app guidance. According to the guidelines, unclear or misleading error prompts are considered bugs, hence they are still in-scope.

---

❓ Issue type

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---

❓ Issue severity

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement:

According to the picture above, guidelines says that severity,VeryLow is purely cosmetic, typo/spacing, no usage impact. However, this bug affects the user’s ability to input valid command, creating misleading guidance. While it doesn’t block functionality, it may cause confusion and misleads the user into thinking the command is unsupported, even though it is. Currently, it requires the user to investigate via help, which is extra cognitive and interaction load. This goes beyond the "VeryLow" severity as it introduces a usability flaw and adds unnecessary friction to command discovery.

Therefore, it causes minor inconvenience, not purely cosmetic confusion. So while I am open to reducing it from Medium, it should remain at least Low and not be classified as VeryLow.

---