| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
| | I understood this in a wholly different way.... I thought that since many companies are doing server maintenance + possibly software testing on days where not many people are working, this refers to Cueball (as a software engineer) bitterly commenting about not having a day off when everybody else has.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.177|162.158.111.177]] 06:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | | I understood this in a wholly different way.... I thought that since many companies are doing server maintenance + possibly software testing on days where not many people are working, this refers to Cueball (as a software engineer) bitterly commenting about not having a day off when everybody else has.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.177|162.158.111.177]] 06:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
| | : At least for the "software testing" part this is in general not true. Most companies have dedicated test systems, which are, in an ideal world, even separate from the development systems. This is, for example, the default system landscape that SAP recommends for their users (and ofc SAP itself). https://help.sap.com/docs/SOFTWARE_LOGISTICS_TOOLSET_CTS_PLUG-IN/05c12df5b54849c49940a14bc089d8b4/63a30a4ac00811d2851c0000e8a57770.html?locale=en-US [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | | : At least for the "software testing" part this is in general not true. Most companies have dedicated test systems, which are, in an ideal world, even separate from the development systems. This is, for example, the default system landscape that SAP recommends for their users (and ofc SAP itself). https://help.sap.com/docs/SOFTWARE_LOGISTICS_TOOLSET_CTS_PLUG-IN/05c12df5b54849c49940a14bc089d8b4/63a30a4ac00811d2851c0000e8a57770.html?locale=en-US [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
| − | : I rather read it as "testing the test system". The meta-test of whether a particularly extreme test would not just fail the test but cause the testing system to failover badly. To this end, ''nothing but the accumulatively bad testing'' can be run (upon the test system), everything else is put on hold (because regular testing added to the test-testing would confound the matter, and be useless anyway if the test-tests made the thing fold under the pressure first) and this forces the testers to keep their hands off everything for the duration (the 'day' given the test value of 0th January, and the rest), much as per the [[Compiling]] down-time.
| |
| − | : If the meta-test goes wrong (causes the meta-testing to fail, or perhaps does not fail 'correctly' at the non-meta test level) then the human testers no longer have their time off and are called back in for their mini-holiday (or no longer allowed to leave, if the failure happens during pre-test-test testing).
| |
| − | : For the crashing of the "recordkeeping system", as per title-text, this could be anything from deliberately "give a test we know crashes the (non-meta) system" by the testers to the non-tester recordkeepers not trusting the testers (and test-testers) and so trying to use the test-test data themselves upon a system of their own that is definitely not test-test-proof because they hadn't had asked for (test-)tester validation of it. (I've been part of a Change Control processing group where we've been made aware of a sub-group that has been reconfiguring its own little corner of the system without due reference to company policy, perhaps due to office politics and "it's nothing to do with them", etc.)
| |
| − | : But I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.183|172.69.43.183]] 09:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Changed away from the description of the javascript being "abused" by non-standard values. It may be a valid shortcut to just add a relevent ('over the top') value to <code>dayOfMonth</code> or <code>hourOfDay</code> variables, or even subtract and let the inbuilt algorithm resolve the oddness (with some testing, or documented confirmation, that it does the right thing).
| |
| − | <br/>If the core function isn't actually broken/fooled/exceptioned by out-of-normal-range inputs, it allows "this exact same time next week" without having to additionally do your own <code>this.day=this.day+7; if this.day>daysInMonth(this.month) { this.day=this.day-daysInMonth(this.month); this.month++; if this.month>valueDecember { this.month=valueJanuary; this.year++ } }</code> and hope you've not missed off any exception in your reinvention of the same wheel that the date-handling code has probably already covered. In ''at least'' as much detail as you just did, prior to feeding it with your 'presanitised' variables, but if you know you need to maybe add <code>,this.Year</code> to the <code>daysInMonth(...)</code> param, to cover leapyear differences then you already know to test the inbuilt function with an edge-condition to make sure ''it'' knows (before then looking to maybe fudge any adjusting code of your own to undo any inbuilt errors that you see).
| |
| − | <br/>And if it's already good enough to deal with everything necessary, with or without additional functionality-refinements, then it's just a bonus that you can actually supply a dateTime adjusted by subtracting some relevent <code>secondsInSiderealYear</code> from the current <code>observationTime.seconds</code> to give a different retrospective timestamp to if you had taken off <code>secondsInTropicalYear</code> instead (having tested that it does the right thing for your purposes when it leaps back from Gregorian into Julian calendars, if this is deemed relevent). Neater code, for which simple comments/documentation can reveal the pre-testing done that justifies it. You could even put that in validating initialiser that fails-over (or sets up an appropriate autocorrection flag) when it finds your script is being run with library versions of the functions (or within a set of ENV settings) that are wrong... Of course, it may take a bugrep from an end-user to ''know'' where it goes wrong, but if you're serious enough to reimplement the whole shebang manually with absolutely ''every'' possible issue of contention 'correctly' pre-handled, then you are also capable of saving yourself the effort and just validating whether the function calls were pre-pre-handling this already. You can be control-freaky in different ways (non-delegating or delegating-but-checking), much as you can let process errors slip through in different ways (significantly err yourself or miss significant errors already made by others).
| |
| − | <br/>Horses for courses, of course! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.172|172.70.90.172]] 13:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
| |
