Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

8
  • 5
    "However, don't release the actual fix untested. " How ? If he cannot reproduce the conditions that caused the bug, how will he reproduce them to test the fix ? Also I wouldn't assume OP didn't do his best effort. Commented Oct 9, 2013 at 17:34
  • "If you have found a problem in the code, you should find it much simpler to create the environment, reproduce the issue, and test the fix." I read the OP's question to be, "Should I require all bug reports to have a repro case before attempting to diagnose the problem?" No, you shouldn't. Commented Oct 9, 2013 at 17:42
  • I would expect most of the testing to be regression testing of existing features. Commented Oct 9, 2013 at 18:09
  • 4
    @MichaelK: Your answer seems to conflict with itself. If you don't determine what the steps are to reproduce the bug, how will you ever know what your test cases should be? You might not always need to reproduce the bugs yourself, but most of those cases will occur when the steps to reproduce are already known. If all you have is a log file with no known steps, then you have no test cases to QA with. Commented Oct 9, 2013 at 18:38
  • 8
    I think what he's saying is, you don't necessarily have to reproduce the issue in order to investigate a fix for it. And assuming you track it down and find a fix, you'll then know the conditions to set up on the test server to reproduce. At that point you'd even know how to set up the previous code - set it up, verify that it's reproducible, deploy the fix, verify that it's fixed. Commented Oct 9, 2013 at 19:21