3 ms·
To clarify here, I was fixing invalid HTML in todos, not disabling it entirely. There were some HTML tags people used that I wasn't aware of. Let's be honest,
by qrush 15y ago
To clarify here, I was fixing invalid HTML in todos, not disabling it entirely. There were some HTML tags people used that I wasn't aware of.
Let's be honest, we're all human here and make mistakes, I took responsibility for it and learned a lot in the process.
- sanderjd 15y agoIt has nothing to do with you screwing up. Of course every individual person makes mistakes pretty much constantly, which is why there is a whole team developing an application, and why there is pair programming, and why there are code reviews, and why there are tests. As a customer of Basecamp, it doesn't worry me that you made that mistake - totally easy mistake to make - but that nobody else noticed it and no automated tests caught it. It seems to me that 37signals may have gone too far the opposite way in their rejection of process and stifling rules.
- jdludlow 15y agoYes, this is what I meant. Sorry if my original post came off too strongly. I didn't mean "haha you screwed up." We've all screwed up. It was more a commentary on how no other devs, unit tests, or human testers caught this before it went live.
- jeffrydegrande 15y agoNick says he wasn't aware of a couple of tags. I think it's fair to assume there were tests, and plenty of them but a use case was overlooked. Which I think is perfectly reasonable. Automated tests don't catch what you don't know. This doesn't say anything about 37s and how they work. I guess the only thing that matters is how much time it took for a fix to be deployed.
- sanderjd 15y agoIt is reasonable, and testing can't catch everything, but it does say something about them, though I don't think it's anything they wouldn't say about themselves - their top priority is not assuring quality, but assuring that quality lapses can be, and are, quickly rectified. That's fine, but it's not for every application or every team.