Skills are case sensitive

[immanuelhume]

Command: e/ s+/c++ s/C++

Expected: warning about duplicate skill

Actual: command succeeds

I understand there is validation against duplicate skills. In which case, it would be good to at least have a warning against obvious duplicates like c++ and C++... not to mention python, Python, PYTHON, etc.

[nus-se-bot]

Team's Response

We did consider this but we wanted to keep the case insensitivity feature. Granted, we should have done more to ensure such obvious cases do not happen but we believe this does not harm the functionality of the application

The 'Original' Bug

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

Skills allows case sensitive duplicates

The feature does not solve the stated problem of the intended user which is to safe useful information for networking purposes.

this is because Skills should be unique regardless of case. For cases such a Java, JAVA, java. Are the same skill and allowing multiples may lead to confusion.

I understand that there may be a myriad of different skills as such it is more wise to have is case sensitive.

However, I believe that this would be more confusing than useful. A possible improvement would be to have a database of skills. This is an example that some career application pages adopt allowing lesser discrepency in skills. Furthermore, it would lead to more acurate filtering/finding

Attached below is a screenshot of duplicate Skill with different Case

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2223S2/pe-interim#2843] [original labels: severity.VeryLow type.FeatureFlaw]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Having a database is a good suggestion. However, for the purpose of this module, we were not allowed to have a database to store information.

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]

---

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: My suggested fix (at least issuing a warning) should be within the scope of v1.4, since v1.4 already guards against duplicates. Furthermore, the examples I gave (e.g. c++ vs C++) are quite obvious violations and they should have been considered.

---

❓ Issue severity

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: This is not a cosmetic issue, but a data validation one. As such, it should at least be assigned a Low severity.

---