3 ms·
One question: are they somehow more efficient in answering to an incident report? My conjecture: I am not so surprised at these having the same % of failures -
by Pamar 7y ago
One question: are they somehow more efficient in answering to an incident report?
My conjecture: I am not so surprised at these having the same % of failures - after all the TDD will not magically lead everyone to think of all the possible ramifications; you write tests for the case that you can "imagine" just like a non-TDD developer will implement logic to cover cases they can "imagine".
But on the other hand, if after fixing the bug you need to prove that you haven't caused some other side effect, then having a full test suite in place should be more efficient than retest everything again (or less risky than "ok, fixing module W should not impact X, Y and Z, so we test X only and ship...").
- tempguy9999 7y agoWhy is this downvoted, it seems like a good point. Also @moksly's point seems at odds with an apparently highly regarded piece of software, SQLite.
- y4mi 7y agomost projects can't move as slow as sqlites development does. A software such as sqlite is in the rare situation that stable releases are more important than anything else. Everyone I've worked with got payed for features though, not stability
- tempguy9999 7y agoI guess these are good points. The last line especially. Yet it's obvious to me that correctness and stability should be features, and more fundamental than all others. It's not as if a non-extreme amounts of testing is all that expensive.
- moksly 7y ago> are they somehow more efficient in answering to an incident report No. The only thing that consistently affects speed is size of the suppliers, the bigger the slower.