|
Nish Nishant wrote: Well, a basic business requirement would be that your code can compile into a binary/runnable format
That would not be a requirement of the business. That would be a technical requirement.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Technical requirements and business requirements have some overlap.
|
|
|
|
|
Business requirements define "what" the system should do, while the technical requirements define "how" the system should met those requirements.
And defining the binaries that are output is most definitely a technical requirement.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is an excellent, succinct answer, though it doesn't completely capture the 'why' of bugs. A bug is a defect that has to be repaired before the program is in some sense perfect. Mandeep8 wrote: A bug is the failure of code to fulfill business requirements.
means the code is perfect if it perfectly fulfills business requirements.
All kinds of run time errors keep the program from perfectly fulfilling business needs, though if the error is handled, the program may continue to fulfill some business needs. A compile error is a bug in this definition, since a program won't run if it doesn't compile. A program may run without error and still not fulfill business needs if it is incomplete or incorrect. This is a defect in design or implementation. Even if the program does exactly what its developer intends, if it doesn't meet the user's needs for which it was created, it may be said to be defective. This last kind of defect in design is the hardest kind for developers to get their heads around. It's not about what you intended, it's about what the user needed.
|
|
|
|
|
In the old days, they were considered bugs. So there were 3 levels ;
- compiler errors
- runtime errors (program crashes)
- logical/functional errors (program does not crash but gives incorrect output)
Today most people don't consider compiler errors as bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting question you pose.
Would you track compiler errors in a bug tracking database?
I would hope that no one ever has. As soon as I say that then someone is going to say, "what about the people who are writing code compilers?" 
So, since you wouldn't really consider tracking compiler errors as you do other errors they probably should be ignored since you can't build the software to get it running without resolving them.
Analogy Time
Also, let's see if there is an analogy....
...suppose the robots that are building the cars in an assembly line malfunction and start painting the cars multiple colors because the car has a design element which sticks out that inadvertently flips a switch as it travels down the assembly line. Would that be a bug in the car?
Probably not.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are working on a C++ template library, you may need to track some bugs that may take a few days to fix 
|
|
|
|
|
I had the misfortune to work with a software development suite, back in my early years (around 1992-93) - where there was a bug in the compiler.
We never exactly figured out the bug - but it manifested itself in a strange way. Basically, the error would only occur at run-time, but the error that was thrown made no sense for the line of code it was thrown at. If you then ran the code with the integrated debugging turned on, and stepped through the code to that line, it would pass just fine, and work as intended.
If - after you exited the debugger - you then executed the code again, no error would be thrown. Only if you modified the code afterward and executed it again, would an error be generated (this time, on a different line, again unrelated to the error being thrown).
We had to track that bug in our bug tracking system, but we never found out what was causing the bug in the compiler. We knew that the object code, though, that the debugger created (likely including the debugging symbols and other cruft needed to make stepping through the code, monitoring variables, establishing breakpoints, etc) worked fine, so as a part of our process at the time, we just included a comment detailing this info at the top of the code, so that we would remember to run a debug on it before shipping it out.
Multiple phone calls and snail-mail letters (the internet wasn't a commercial thing back then) to the vendor of the system went completely unanswered, unfortunately. I ended up leaving the company a year or so later.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting story.
In theory there are no exceptional cases, but there's always an exceptional case in practice, isn't there?
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot the Visual Studio doesn't (currently) work properly so we need a workaround bug
|
|
|
|
|
Here you touch one of the reasons why I dislike interpreters so much. A compiler can automatically detect syntax errors and also some smaller desasters waiting to happen, like uninitialized variables, missing return values or type mismatches. Since you have nothing to run until the compiler is satisfied, these bugs are easy to get rid of and will not be of any trouble anymore.
An interpreter will not notice anything until it reaches a faulty line at runtime. The ridiculous amount of testing othat would be needed to get the security of a freshly compiled (and by no means perfect) program simply is not worth it.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: An interpreter will not notice anything until it reaches a faulty line at runtime. The ridiculous amount of testing othat would be needed to get the security of a freshly compiled (and by no means perfect) program simply is not worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
var godObject = new God();
while(true)
{
godObject.DoWhatIsNeeded()
}
This is a compilation error... until you go back it add the missing semi-colon.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
You can look for technical definitions, but they would just become overly complex sets of rules and codicils, but what a bug really is is something that makes a program behave in a way that your customers don't expect it to behave.
Crashing, for example, is not what I would call "expected behaviour", when using a program -- so if it crashes, there's a bug.
More subtly, if you tell a customer that a program will do A and it does B, that's a bug -- but the bug might not be in the code, it might be in the way you explained it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Is Windows 7's constant attempting to install a differnet version of an OS without consent a bug? It's not expected the behaviour
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed. It is unwanted behavior that is actually built in.
Many would call that malware, and I'd tend toward agreeing with them.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
What is a bug?
Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more!
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: ? Or do you think that something can only be called a bug if it manifests when the program is run?
I agree.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
In a strongly typed language such as C#, a syntax bug will result in a compile time error so will be trapped before it reaches any potential customers. In a loosely typed language such as Javascript a syntax error will result in a run-time exception and so could arguably be defined as a bug as it could reach a potential customer if it has not been tested sufficiently.
A bug is generally defined as any deviation from expected behaviour.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
For some customers, a "bug" is when your software doesn't magically alter its behaviour to adapt to changes in the business requirements which they didn't bother to tell you about. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I asked one of our customers...
"A bug is when one choose to print a summary report and a summary report is printed"...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought of a bug as a flaw in the code implementation (logic) that does not meet the business requirements, as stated earlier by other members.
If someone is writing sh*tty code, that is not a bug, that is just feces, and they probably need to go see a doctor. Just saying... 
modified 5-May-16 16:08pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: there are other categories, like a "performance bug" -- produces the right result but takes too long
Performance is a feature, not a bug. Remember that software development is driven by one's ability to only pick two out of fast, correct and cheap.
Marc Clifton wrote: those things that the compiler (or the IDE) detects before you even run the code, and in fact prevents you from running the code
Typos.
Marc Clifton wrote: Or do you think that something can only be called a bug if it manifests when the program is run?
I would tend to agree with that assertion.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
