jinyang628/ped

ped's Issues

Inability to sort company names by descending order

I can only sort company names by ascending order. Suppose I have a very large list and I want to find a company name that starts with the letter ‘Z’. I forgot how to spell the company name exactly so I cannot use the find command (since the find command is not useful in searching for applications with partially matching keywords as stated in the UG).

The only way I can find my desired entry is to sort by company name (in ascending order) and scroll through possibly thousands of entries. This is undesirable for the user. In my opinion, this suggests that the feature is not complete.

Outdated reference to ‘AddressBook’ in UG ‘Quick Start’ section

Under step 3, the reader sees ‘home folder for your AddressBook’. I think ‘AddressBook’ should be replaced with ‘JobFindr’ to prevent any misunderstanding from the users’ point of view.

Unclear introductory sentence in UG

My understanding of a ‘contact book app’ is more of a phone directory. I was hence expecting this application to store contact names and phone numbers, not job applications and companies. I believe that the term “Contact Book app” is misused here and should be rephrased to ‘Job Application Management app’.

I do understand that this is a very minor issue though.

App crashes when loading large data files

After populating applicationbook.json with 2000 unique entries, I tried loading the data file into the application. The application fails to start properly and crashes.

As JobFindr is primarily used by users to track applications and interviews, it is not unreasonable to expect a user to have around 2000 entries over the course of their 4-5 year degree in NUS. After all, users can choose not to delete their old applications/interviews and keep track of the companies that have rejected them for future reference.

Understandably, this situation is rare hence the low severity. But its impact is huge so it is worth addressing. Maybe cap the storage to 500 entries and state it explicitly in the UG?

Delete command INDEX parameter does not adhere to restrictions stated in UG (Medium)

The following constraints are stated in the UG

However, this command can be successfully executed.

I can execute “delete 0000000000000000000000002” and the second application will be deleted. However “00000000….002” is not a positive integer as stated in the UG so this is a bug. This bug can be replicated in other commands such as interview delete 00000001 from/2.

Failure to replicate the “Adding an application” example stated in the UG

This example is stated in the UG.

I tried to replicate it in the app.

I understand that the DateTime field cannot take in a value that is earlier than the current date and time as stated in the UG. But the UG’s example contains a date time value that is outdated to begin with.

As a user, I believe that it is only normal for me to expect that when I copy and paste a sample example from the UG, it will be successful. In fact, this bug was rather frustrating because I thought the whole command didn’t work until 30 minutes later.

Invalid deadline error message does not match actual error

Expected error message: The deadline should not be before the current date and time

Actual error message: Deadline should be in valid DateTime format: MMM dd yyyy HHmm

I believe that the format of my deadline is correct as shown in the screenshot above and that the error message is misleading.

Duplication check for ‘company name’ and ‘role’ parameters are not case-sensitive

It is possible for me to key in near-identical entries such as the following:

Firstly, it is not stated explicitly in the UG’s ‘Command format’ or ‘Adding an application’ sections what constitutes a duplicate entry that will be rejected when users add applications into JobFindr.

Given that it is not clear, I believe that the duplicate detection logic should be stricter and prevent users from keying in entries that are effectively the same if not for capitalisation differences. After all, it is reasonable for us to assume that users are referring to the same company when they key in ‘google’ vs ‘Google’.

Unclear formatting in UG ‘Deleting an application’ section

There's nothing wrong with the content, but I believe a line break to segment ‘list followed by delete 2’ and ‘Deletes the 2nd application in the list.’ with proper bullet point indentation is better.

It will make it clearer to the reader that the second sentence is a description of what the commands before are trying to achieve.