|
True. We need an algorithm for 'stupid'. Then just run DoStupid() on your application to cause mayhem.
In order to understand stack overflow, you must first understand stack overflow.
|
|
|
|
|
I recall (many years) ago a unix tool that output text to the screen. It included options to simulate a lazy/drunk human (you could specify how drunk with some numerical argument). It introduced delays, mistakes and corrections into the typing and looked convincingly human. I can't remember it being useful, but it was funny.
|
|
|
|
|
Go green!
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
People are afraid A.I. will replace them, but slowly the nature is overtaking our jobs. Dey took err jerbs!
In order to understand stack overflow, you must first understand stack overflow.
|
|
|
|
|
that tree must get pay hike.. probably more fertilizers and water 
|
|
|
|
|
We're thinking about replacing some testers with branches. It's cheaper and green. But seriously, it probably will be cut, if/when our client gets a permission to do so (it's a public place). 
In order to understand stack overflow, you must first understand stack overflow.
|
|
|
|
|
S**t mixed in water? It's a fitting description for our coffee machine byproducts waste leaks coffee ...
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
|
|
|
|
|
Smart K8 wrote: The branch became a honorary member of our testing team.
Great story. Thanks for sharing. Made me laugh and think about the old days.
Back when I worked in QA, I once entered a 10,000 character URL into IE (it is no longer possible) to test a product.
The URL not only crashed the program but took down the instance of the Oracle db.
I was absolutely psyched. This was so long ago that the term sql injection hadn't reached popularity and I didn't know that my "extensive testing" had a name. It was fun.
Later the developer asked me, "What do you want me to do with that bug? It's ridiculous. No one would ever do that."
Me: (smiling) "Doesn't matter to me what you do with it. But, at least you know it's there."
I like to break stuff. Especially software. Software is soooo breakable. And most software deserves to be broken.
And, yes, I'm a full-time dev and have been for years. But I still love breaking software.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: But I still love breaking software.
That's the best attitude a developer can have: because now you think of methods which could break your software and then make it better, then think of more sophisticated approaches to break your software, and so on.
Most developers check their code in when a very simple "happy path scenario" seems to work, and that's their definition of "DONE".
Oh sanctissimi Wilhelmus, Theodorus, et Fredericus!
|
|
|
|
|
Bernhard Hiller wrote: That's the best attitude a developer can have
I think so too. Instead of thinking, "it just works" developers need to _worry_ about all the cases where it does not work. It is kind of a pain because there are so many scenarios to think about when you're writing your own software, but the mindset of breaking things keeps you on the right path.
|
|
|
|
|
IMO if you're not doing behavioral or regression testing on your modules throughout development you're doing it wrong. Leaning on code coverage unit tests in place of this is one of my biggest kvetches about the TDD culture.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
"What do you want me to do with that bug? It's ridiculous. No one would ever do that."
Not so fast... my cat could do it with one paw!
It took too long. It too soo long.
|
|
|
|
|
jaf2 wrote: my cat could do it with one paw!
That's the best use of a cat I've ever heard too. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Software is soooo breakable.
Civilization I did not "break", regardless of the hours I spent "testing".
If you wanted to say that there exists a lot of crappy software, then yes, you're right. But, that is a choice, nothing else - good software need not be "soooo breakable".
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: I like to break stuff. Especially software. Software is soooo breakable. And most software deserves to be broken.
And, yes, I'm a full-time dev and have been for years. But I still love breaking software.
It's really a shame my employer is in the financial doldrums, otherwise I'd recommend they hire you in our systems engineering (aka Quality Assurance) department. Our current staff is very green, and the testing isn't of high quality.
Unfortunately our experience with hiring experienced software engineers in QA has been that they leave as soon as they find a gig writing software rather than testing it.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: leave as soon as they find a gig writing software
And that is probably exactly what raddevus did 
A dedicated, pedantic, annaly retentive destroyer of code tester is a complete PITA and a wonderful addition to a team.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, a nice story out of testing. Thank you for sharing.
|
|
|
|
|
No amount of testing can flesh out bugs faster than an end user. Even if it's a tree. I swear some trees are more on the ball anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of an old testing method we had thirty years ago: The five-year-old test.
This was in the pre-GUI-days, with keyboard input and ASCII output only, when the final test before release was to put your five year old at the keyboard, telling him: Do whatever you want!
Daddy will give you an ice cream cone for every time you make the program stop, and can show daddy how you did it!
I wouldn't say we used that test method regulary, but we did catch a few bugs that way.
|
|
|
|
|
People without children use the cat for it
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The other excellent "random" test for software is to demo it to a prospective purchaser, or better still let them use it during a public demonstration. Boy, does that reveal the bugs...  
I recall an IBM presenter showing off the latest release of OS/2 at a primarily Windows-based trade show. He had a 20-foot screen behind him and was walking us through the latest and greatest addition to the OS. Standing to one side of the PC he hit "enter" with a flourish to complete his walkthrough, and was delighted when the crowd erupted with cheers and a standing ovation. Until he turned around and saw a "fatal" error message filling the screen. (Can't remember the text now but it was very appropriate and entirely met the expectations of the watching Microsoft devotees)
|
|
|
|
|
Or, if you are still a student: Giving a demo to your professor.
In my student days, the last semester before we started our Master Thesis work we spend half of the time on a major team project - 6-8 students doing a design and implementation together. The final product was presented for assessment and judgement by several professors and graduate students, both through verbal descriptions of the design, and a practical demo.
Our demo went... sh*t. So we had to fall back on a reserve solution. Which went sh*it. But we had a third alternative, which went... Even our fifth and last alternative demo failed.
Yet we were awarded top grades (equivalent to an A) for our project work. I guess that part of the reason was that we had prepared so well with four backup solutions. (And also, we could explain what went wrong when something failed, how it could be corrected.)
My favorite error message could earlier be seen quite often at all the info screens at our local airport: The Tandem non-stop computer system is down.
|
|
|
|
|
it's because, contrary to testers, the tree is endowed with self consciousness!
|
|
|
|
|
Gives a whole new meaning to "branching your code"
|
|
|
|
|
Unbelievable story … please promise that it was not made up for our amusement … 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
