[NUG] *Re: API 2.0

[Jon Ogden]

Norman,

I’m not pissed off at you.  I just am amazed that “verified” doesn’t mean what it and 99% of the other people say.  Again, if you take the case of the Serial Port bug I pointed out, it’s easy for Stephane or Robin to look at how different states of the RS-232 port give different status results.  It’s quite easy to see it’s a bug.  There’s another one that I found in Cocoa with a key up event firing twice in text fields.  It absolutely does and last time I checked it still does it.  Joe “verified” it years ago.  I’m surprised most people don’t report it and see it as a problem.  But a key up even should never fire twice.  And in both of these cases, I included example programs.  

To me reviewed has basically meant, “yeah, I’ve read this and looked at this.”  Verified has meant “yeah, we see we have a bug here”  Because the next step is “fixed and verified” meaning, we fixed the code.  Now, that’s totally different from it being implemented and put into a build to be released.  I understand some time can happen between those two.

Now, you’ve come along and said that what I (and probably everyone else) has believed for years is not correct.  OK.  But my point then is that it’s a terrible line of logic and policy.   

Perhaps fixing a keyup event from firing twice in a text field is a bigger issue than one would think it should be.  But I would think consistently reporting the same information in a serial port should be an easy fix.  Heck I’ve implemented a workaround for it (and for the text field as well).  I’m surprised that for any of these “difficult” bugs that Xojo doesn't put in a workaround if the bug is too complex to fix.  It doesn’t fix it but it hides it from the user so we don’t have to remember to use our own subclasses that implement the workarounds.

But when engineers like William Yu mark something as “verified” my thoughts are that there’s something to it and my example has shown them the issue.  But I guess not.

I agree that I have seen things I’ve submitted fixed very rapidly.  But I’ve also seen stuff languish that I don’t think should.

Jon

> On Mar 14, 2019, at 11:18 AM, Norman Palardy <npalardy at great-white-software.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 14, 2019, at 9:38 AM, Jon Ogden via Nug <nug at xojousers.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry responding to my own post, but I had something else to add that I forgot to write the first time!
>> 
>> I can guarantee you that if the behavior the user reports is verified but NOT a bug, that Xojo would close the case and mark it as not a bug and that the behavior is correct.  I’ve had it happen to me.  
> 
> Eventually it happens once an engineer looks at it
> Or they actually look at it and do more analysis and figure out complexity, scope of the fix, side effects, etc
> And then MAYBE they schedule it to be fixed - or decide to not touch it
> But you have no way to see any of that 
> 
>> So it’s it’s not a bug, they wouldn’t just verify it and leave it open.
> 
> Yup they do for a variety of reasons
> Usually "There are higher priority items to take care of", "To small an impact", "Too few people affect by the fix", "Requires the entire (compiler/IDE/etc) to be reengineered"
> 
> There are lots of reasons bug reports sit for a long time
> 
> Hell I have some of my own that I figured "gee now I work here I'll get that fixed right away"
> And now a decade later I'm NOT there and those are still open and unfixed
> 
> My personal favourite is "external items in text format"
> I think 4 engineers have tried that one and in trying to fix it pretty much broke everything
> The conclusion is that an entire new project file format is required
> Which puts it in the "yeah we're unlikely to get there any time soon" bucket
> 
>> I like you Norman, but I can’t agree with your conclusions with this.
> 
> They're not conclusions
> They are my actual experiences from the inside knowing how WE used the system and what those things meant
> Verified is just "It behaves like this" not "Its a bug"
> 
> You're looking at it from outside assuming everything you can see is everything that goes on
> That is NOT true
> 
> So why not just believe what I'm telling you instead of being pissed off at me ?
> I'm not trying to bullshit you
> Just trying to correct a misconception you have abut how things work and that they mean
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nug mailing list
> Nug at xojousers.com
> http://mail.xojousers.com/mailman/listinfo/nug_xojousers.com