(no subject)
Feb. 24th, 2006 02:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
semperfionaFor two days I've been working with QA on getting a patch release out.
Everything looked fine in their testing except that a certain button
wouldn't enable on a screen. I knew that one of the fixes in the patch
addressed that particular problem, so I thought maybe that fix hadn't
made it into the patch. I checked and rechecked everything. Terry
checked and rechecked everything. We rebuilt the fix several times over.
Button still disabled.
Finally, this morning, I checked out a clean copy of all the software
that matched up with the patch so that I could run in debug mode. And
what do I find? There's a control code value that specifically disables
that button, and it's set. The display of this control code doesn't show
the value, only the description of the value, and I didn't recognize it
when we looked at it yesterday.
Everything looked fine in their testing except that a certain button
wouldn't enable on a screen. I knew that one of the fixes in the patch
addressed that particular problem, so I thought maybe that fix hadn't
made it into the patch. I checked and rechecked everything. Terry
checked and rechecked everything. We rebuilt the fix several times over.
Button still disabled.
Finally, this morning, I checked out a clean copy of all the software
that matched up with the patch so that I could run in debug mode. And
what do I find? There's a control code value that specifically disables
that button, and it's set. The display of this control code doesn't show
the value, only the description of the value, and I didn't recognize it
when we looked at it yesterday.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 08:58 pm (UTC)Not your fault?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 10:29 pm (UTC)On the one hand, it's SUCH a simple fix.
On the other hand, it woulda been nice if the f'norkin' engineers had, yaknow, DOCUMENTED this feature? So it didn't take two freakin' days to figure out what the non-problem was?
Or did I misinterpret the situation?