Tom Ramcigam (magicmarmot) wrote,
Tom Ramcigam

We have a new procedure in place.

Well, okay, it's not a new procedure. It's evidently supposed to have
been in place for a while now, but nobody actually told us about it.

It has to do with tracking bug fixes. You see, when PV&V generates a
defect (bug) report, it gets entered into their system. All of the
defect reports are then mailed to the team leads who assign them to
individual developers.
What we were doing is opening the defect report, changing the
status to "open", fixing the bugs, logging the fixes, then changing the
status to "fixed" for the next round of testing.

But no, that would be too simple.

New procedure is this:
1.) When you get a bug report, create a "change request" in the source
control software.
2.) Assign the defect code to the change request through the "external
reference ID" field.
3.) Retrieve the change request object ID, add one, and use this as your
change request number.
4.) Using the change request number, change the status of the change
request to "open".
5.) fix the bug.
6.) reload the project into the source control software using the new
change request number.
7.) lock the files in the source control software.
8.) Overwrite the changed files in the SCS.
9.) Add the defect number to the comment field for each file along with
a description of the changes.
10.) Unlock the files in the source control software.
11.) Change the status of the change request to "fixed".
12.) reassign the change request by the object ID (not the number) to
the team lead.
13.) email the team lead with a notification that you have assigned the
responsibility to the verification of your fix to him.

The reason for all the extra steps is because there is no way to link
the source control software to the defect database. It's grunty, but it

But then there's "new feature" tracking. See, marketing occasionally
comes up with new features, or "enhancements" as they call them (because
new features take time to implement, where enhancements take no time at

One of these recent enhancements was the addition of an entirely new
license mode. The only operational specification is that if the license
for one part doesn't match the license for a different part, disable
that operation and display a warning.

1.) "That operation" is not defined anywhere.
2.) There is currently no way to "display a warning" (for other reasons
which are entirely too inane to go into).
3.) There is no reference for this "enhancement".

So currently in the "external reference ID" field, I have "unspecified
change request", and in the comments section I have described the code
changes that I've made to handle unspecified operations with no ability
to display the results.



  • (no subject)

    It finally happened. It had to, really. I was in the bottom two cut from LJ-Idol this week. I made it to the top 50, from some rather larger…

  • Mayville

    "Too many bats in the belfry, eh?" The question came from a small man in the scrubs-and-robe garb of an inmate. He looked a little like a garden…

  • LJ-Idol

    Another batch of entries. Consistently amazed at how good the writing is. Voting is open for…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.