3 ms·
This is a failure in the development of the software that good process in the purchaser’s handbook saved them from. That there were no tests for this system un
by sidlls 4y ago
This is a failure in the development of the software that good process in the purchaser’s handbook saved them from.
That there were no tests for this system under high load indicates a poor engineering practice at DynamicSource. They don’t deserve any kudos for a post-hoc patch that a test in production discovered the bug for when the system is a safety critical system like this.
- Aloha 4y agoThey may have thought their test coverage, covered it adequately - who knows, the success was on Alaska's part. Also process, procedure and more importantly people are always the last line of defense against failure.
- lupire 4y agoMaking excuses for the failures in the first line of defense is the first domino in catastrophic failure. Normalization of deviance.
- sidlls 4y agoI don't think OP was making excuses. It is true that the software vendor's missing test case indicates a poor quality development environment and that humans are the last line of defense. No development process is perfectly resilient against errors, even good quality processes.
- admax88qqq 4y agoMy completely uninformed opinion is the design is flawed if the calculations across planes can interact. Is this some single tenant cloud based system with poor multithreaded safety? Like why would the increased system load change the results. The calculations should be independent and designed in a way where they can't interact.
- wly_cdgr 4y agoWhat do you propose they should have done? Keep testing until they were certain they caught every bug? :)