Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

jonasbn (1153)

  reversethis-{gro.napc} {ta} {nbsanoj}
AOL IM: BJonasN (Add Buddy, Send Message)

Perl Programmer located in Copenhagen, Denmark. Active member of Copenhagen Perl Mongers.

Author of:

  • Business::DK::CPR
  • Business::DK::CVR
  • Business::DK::PO
  • Business::OnlinePayment::CashCow
  • Date::Holidays
  • Date::Holidays::Abstract
  • Date::Holidays::Super
  • Date::Pregnancy
  • Games::Bingo
  • Games::Bingo::Bot
  • Games::Bingo::Print
  • Module::Info::File
  • Module::Template::Setup
  • Test::Timer

and maintainer of:

  • Tie::Tools
  • XML::Conf
  • Workflow

Journal of jonasbn (1153)

Saturday June 07, 2008
03:18 PM

Burden of Proof

[ #36616 ]

A long time ago I reported an issue with a Catalyst plugin.

The POD indicates it is possible to set a temporary directory for use with
Catalyst::Request::Upload in Catalyst::Request::Upload.

This does however not seem to work.


A few days ago I received a response:

Can you provide us with a failing test case?

The mail caught me at a very bad time and I was a very few keystrokes from responding:

Can you provide me with a succeeding test case?

But luckily I did not.

My problem is simply the response time from when I sent the request in the first place.

I created the ticket: Oct. 24th. 2006 and I received the response: May 26th. 2008

That is 1 1/2 year ago, the project I was working on is not longer relevant, I have the source code yes, but I cannot dig up the details of what I tried and what I did not try, back then I just read the POD and examined the code and I could not get it to work - so just for the record I created the RT.

I guess that due to time constraints I should just respond:


But it bothers me, that there might be a bug, which is not dealt with and perhaps this RT is just closed as irrelevant in order to close 5 bugs a day or something like that, I might however put too much into this since this might not be the case, but I have worked in a place where statistics got the boss high and the 5 a day trend no matter how nice it sounds does come with a pitfall of things being closed too rapidly.

I just wrote a journal entry on a problem with test reports on old distributions and in my opinion time is a large part of the problem.

If we have bugs and issues deal with them while they are a problem and not 1 1/2 after, I would not expect many people would be ready to give you feedback on their bug reports after such a long time, they might have changed jobs, language, name... whatever, they have moved on, time goes by...

So if we have stuff queuing up for years and years I guess 5 a day might be a way to flush things so we can move on. So perhaps this 5 a day is not such a bad thing after all if handled responsively.

Which brings me to my next problem - Tests.

I was asked whether I had a failing test case - well I would love to have one, but testing this might not be as easy as it sound since the configuration part in Catalyst is somewhat weird. Back then I simply looked at the code after several unsuccessful attempts and since I could not locate where the problem might be, I thought I would let the more knowledgeable author examine the issue.

So with all this testing and stuff it has all of a sudden become the users job to carry the Burden of Proof. Would should this not be the authors job after all, he/she might now the code
better and should have test cases covering the usage scenario or at least the code statements.

But who am I to complain, this is open source, I could choose to fix it myself, take the time to write the test case or just get of the horse and drink my milk.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.