Timeline for How to close a bug that is no longer relevant
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Oct 9, 2013 at 14:03 | comment | added | gnat | @BenLee to reason about things as if black box is only a technique, one (of many) tools in QA arsenal if you wish. Testers using it aren't prohibited to have an interest and understanding of internals of system under test (using deep understanding of system internals to derive better "black box" test scenarios from code coverage results analysis is a good example) | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 20:38 | comment | added | Ben Lee | -1 because I disagree with nearly everything you said. +1 because I agree with the final conclusion, "close these as resolved, fixed. Of course it wouldn't hurt if you clarify in the comments that the fix occurred as an unintended side effect of layout change". The whole claim about testers not understanding the difference between fixed and no longer relevant is absurd. So what if it's a black box. It's still obvious to a tester there's a difference between "problem is gone because it was fixed" vs "problem is gone because it's no longer possible to create the context where it had existed". | |
| Apr 10, 2013 at 16:09 | comment | added | penguat | How about "Fixed by Redesign"? | |
| Apr 10, 2013 at 15:26 | vote | accept | Benjamin Gruenbaum | ||
| Apr 10, 2013 at 15:26 | comment | added | Benjamin Gruenbaum | All the answers are good, but this one seems to nail it. Thanks everyone. | |
| Apr 10, 2013 at 13:41 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 | clarified per discussion in comments |
| Apr 10, 2013 at 13:36 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 | clarified per discussion in comments |
| Apr 10, 2013 at 13:32 | comment | added | gnat | @TRiG well that's why I pointed that one better explains exact details in comments. Fixed By Design is a bit broad; in the project I've seen it it was used to communicate rather profound changes having lots of consequences, some intentional, some not - thus covering cases like that. Note also, neither question text nor my answer imply "fix by mistake" (what mistake?) - here, "unintentional" is much much better fit | |
| Apr 10, 2013 at 13:32 | comment | added | user82096 | I agree that "fixed" is sufficient. It doesn't matter at all whether it was intentional or a side effect of other changes. However, I also agree with @TRiG that "Fixed by Design" is confusing. | |
| Apr 10, 2013 at 13:24 | comment | added | TRiG | Fixed by Design would imply, to me, the complete opposite of that. In my mind, by design means "intentional" (it's the opposite of "by mistake"). | |
| Apr 10, 2013 at 12:36 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 | formatting kaizen |
| Apr 10, 2013 at 12:14 | history | answered | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |