Address field should be optional

[TehOPanas]

Given that the our users are not guaranteed to be home tutor, I think we should not enforce having address as compulsory field given that if the user works or owns a tuition center, it is not an necessity to know the tutee's address.

[soc-se-bot]

Team's Response

Our team think that address should be mandatory field for the following reasons:

1. In the case that the tutor works in a tuition center, the tutor is not limited to teaching students from that tuition center itself. He/she can have personal students outside the tuition center.

2. A tutor can work in multiple tuition centers.

3. In the case that the tutor is a home tutor, knowing where the students live is essential so the tutor can gauge scheduling times (e.g. if I know two tutees who live far apart, I would not have their schedules back-to-back )

Hence while we do acknowledge that flexibility is a valid concern, we view that the above reasons for why it should not be implemented is compelling enough to postpone this as lower priority and to invest our efforts in more pressing bug fixes in v1.3 and v1.4.

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Thanks for the response. However I am sorry to disagree with your stance.

In my opinion, I think the reasoning of the developer team does not justify why the address field should be mandatory, they only specified the scenarios where address is needed. Listing out only these scenarios cannot justify address being mandatory as we can still put down the address for these scenarios when the address field is optional.

Address being optional does not mean that our product won't be viable anymore for these scenarios, instead it provides much more flexibility to those tutors that really have no need of knowing the residential address of their students.

In terms of effort needed, given that address feature is already present in the original AB3 implementation, modifying it to be optional does not require a lot of effort and it can be done at an early stage (e.g. v1.2). Thus I do not think that this feature flaw is justified to be NotInScope.

---