Timeline for Is it reasonable to insist on reproducing every defect before diagnosing and fixing it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 19, 2016 at 12:50 | comment | added | reinierpost | I agree that retesting must always be done when possible, but that is beside the point. The question here is whether it's reasonable to always insist on the problem being reproducible in the first place. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 8:04 | comment | added | gnasher729 | The goal is not to fix bugs, the goal is to have a good product. You make a code change that improves the code, and in your opinion, and the opinion of the reviewer, may fix the bug. Then the product will be tested again. Possibly by involuntary testers aka end users. | |
| Jun 21, 2016 at 16:56 | history | edited | reinierpost | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 1 character in body |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 16:21 | history | edited | reinierpost | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 37 characters in body |
| Dec 19, 2013 at 9:15 | history | edited | reinierpost | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 72 characters in body |
| Oct 10, 2013 at 7:32 | comment | added | reinierpost | You know you'll have fixed the bug when it's so easy to reproduce that you don't need to. | |
| Oct 10, 2013 at 6:02 | comment | added | BЈовић | If it isn't reasonable to reproduce the bug, how do you know you fixed the bug? Regardless how complex the way to reproduce bug is. | |
| Oct 10, 2013 at 0:18 | history | answered | reinierpost | CC BY-SA 3.0 |