Details parameter can be an empty input

[Nihirraa]

The add and edit commands accept the detail parameter to be an empty input.

However, for the find command it states that criteria for detail cannot be empty. This can lead to confusion among users.

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

Thanks for the suggestion. Currently we do not support finding empty details since the purpose of the find function is to find participants based on keywords (as stated in the UG).

We do acknowledge the value in searching for empty details. However, since it is not the main goal of the find function, and implementing finding empty details would require special effort to make it different from the find for other parameters, just for one small, rare case, we have decided to delay it to a future version, hence have marked this issue as not in scope.

The 'Original' Bug

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

Inability to search for users with empty fields under d/

The application allows for the addition of people where the detail are not specified, as this is an optional input field.

However, the find command does not allow for the searching of contacts which empty detail fields.
Since the creation of people without these fields are allowed, the user may indeed want to find people where these fields are unspecified.

Steps to recreate:

find d/

Ideal output:
List all persons whose study group tag is empty/ not specified.

Current output:
Error message: "Criteria cannot be empty: d/"

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2425S1/pe-interim#2689] [original labels: type.FeatureFlaw severity.Low]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thanks for the suggestion. Currently we do not support finding empty details since the purpose of the find function is to find participants based on keywords (as stated in the UG).

We do acknowledge the value in searching for empty details. However, since it is not the main goal of the find function, and implementing finding empty details would require special effort to make it different from the find for other parameters, just for one small, rare case, we have decided to delay it to a future version, hence have marked this issue as not in scope.

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: [replace this with your explanation]

---

❓ Issue type

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---

❓ Issue severity

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---