Did not know that expenses can and only belong to one event only

[nus-pe-bot]

Throughout the testing, I did not know that the expenses can belong and only belong to one event only, until I played around with the addexev command.

I believe the inclusion of whether the expenses belong to any event is important, especially when there is now suddenly a "expense moved to another event" message.

It can be included after the category part of the list command entries (and esp since they are already tagged to the category, i don't see why they can't also be tagged to an event)

---

_{[original: nus-cs2113-AY2324S2/pe-interim#2275] [original labels: type.FeatureFlaw severity.Medium]}

[yeozhishen]

Team's Response

While we acknowledge the tester's suggestion that displaying event information within the list command could be beneficial for users, our team believes it's important to maintain the primary purpose of the list command, which is to provide a concise overview of all expenses, focusing on essential details like description, amount, date, and category. We've designed the viewEvent command specifically for users to delve into expenses associated with a particular event. This division of functionality allows the list command to remain dedicated to offering a comprehensive snapshot of all expenses, irrespective of their associated events, while the viewEvent command serves the specific purpose of exploring expenses within a selected event.

Thus, to keep the list command concise, we decided to omit event details.

In any case, we anticipate that users will not randomly associate expenses with events, as events are intended to organize specific groups of expenses. Consequently, the necessity for users to access information regarding which event an expense belongs to, and subsequently associate it with another event, is unlikely. Our expected use case involves users creating expenses and promptly tagging them to the appropriate event. From that point forward, users can conveniently access and manage expenses associated with a particular event using the viewEvent command.

The tester had the confusion because he/she was making haphazard association between expenses and events for testing purposes, which is highly unlikely in a normal use case scenario. This is thus a feature flaw that causes inconvenience only in very rare situations which should be categorised as severity low.

Duplicate status (if any):

--