3 ms·

I think you are getting too into the weeds with these complaints. This hierarchy is pretty good. Performance and security are important, but they aren't always

I think you are getting too into the weeds with these complaints. This hierarchy is pretty good. Performance and security are important, but they aren't always a full stop, where a change the breaks the API should always be a full stop. Each higher level is less likely to be a hard stop, and the border between levels is necessarily somewhat grey.

mannykannot 5y ago
I'm not so concerned with the broad levels, but the specific items within them. So, for example, "is a new API generally useful and not overly specific?" is way too broad a question to elicit only breaking errors in the API, and is an invitation to exactly the sort of loss of focus that the author rightly deprecates. WRT performance, I specifically wrote "truly inadequate" in an attempt to distinguish between breaking and merely undesirably bad performance, but that is a somewhat vague line - unavoidably, I think. Off the top of my head, the only sort of security 'problem' that can safely be put aside would be one that cannot lead to serious or irreversible harm, or requires the organization to have already been terminally compromised. That I have to make these distinctions is, in fact, the basis of my concerns. They follow from two premises: firstly, the purpose of an inspection is to find problems that need to be fixed, and secondly, whether a problem falls into that category is orthogonal to the questions of what functional, structural or operational categories it falls in.