Related
I know this question seems subjective but it's really pretty simple. As a long term user, and part time contributor to SubSonic I'm interested in what the community thinks would be the single best way to improve it.
So what's your opinion, how would you make SubSonic even better? What one thing would make you more likely to use/recommend/evangelise/stop complaining about it?
As I said I know this is a bit subjective and may get closed but as SO is the main support forum for SubSonic I think this could be a useful way to solicit opinion and/or contributions.
To keep this from turning into a general discussion here's the rules:
No omnibus wishes
No duplicate wishes
Up-vote those you agree with rather than re-posting them
Ability to run in MediumTrust out of the box
In all honesty the biggest thing thats lacking is solid documentation and HowTo's
Its got better but I think it needs a lot more.
Ability to automatically map collections of other objects, like Fluent NHibernate does.
When SubSonic throws an exception that isn't clear, I'd like to be able to use Google or some other mechanism to discover more information about how to keep my development effort moving forward. Right now it's too easy to get into a situation where you have to go spelunking into the SubSonic source code since SubSonic doesn't seem to be very proactive when the user goes off the "happy path".
This critique is hardly specific to SubSonic. Many (most?) software products suffer from this same problem. I have not really had this problem with NHibernate though, which is SubSonic's most clear competitor.
Faster and higher quality releases
Binary types for SimpleRepository (Images)
Left Outer Joins
Support more database-independent code generation...
What I mean by this is that it is truly a real pain if your application wants to talk to different databases (e.g. SQL Server and Oracle) and you want to only have one set of generated DAL objects. I would love it if you had the option of specifying that any SQL code that gets sent to the DB would be as compatible with most engines as possible, since right now if you generated your objects targeting SQL Server then all queries will be of the form:
SELECT [schema].[table_name] FROM ....
Sadly, this does not work in Oracle, so basically you're out of luck there.
Perhaps this isn't a huge concern for most of you, but I'm currently writing a commercial app that touts one of its main features as being able to run on various database engines just by changing its configuration and I chose SubSonic because I thought it could handle the job pretty easily, but I'm honestly having second thoughts now because of all the hoops I may have to jump through just to get this to work correctly under different environments.
Support MS Access ,Postgres and FireBird database :)....
I am the lone software engineer on a team that develops physics models (approx 30,000 lines of code). The rest of the team consists of scientists who have been developing their codebases for about 20 years. My workflow goes something like this:
Scientist requests a new feature
I implement it
Via testing & validation, I find a serious problem somewhere deep within the numerics
Scientist requests a new feature (without fixing the problems identified in #3)
Our problem seems to be that bug tracking is done via e-mail and post-it notes. Busy work schedules let bugs slip under the radar for months and months. I think some formalized bug tracker (i.e. Trac, Redmine, Jira, FogBugz, etc.) could help us. The following features are essential:
Incredibly easy to use
Integrate with version control software (we use Subversion)
There are plenty of posts that suggest which bugtracker is "best"... but I suppose that I am more interested in:
What's your experience in whether or not the overhead of a bugtracker is worth it
How do you convince a physicist (who follows poor software engineering "best practices" from the 70's) that a bug tracker is worth the extra effor?
I get the feeling that if I install a bug tracker, I'll be the sole user. Has anyone else experienced this? Is it still useful? It seems like the team would need a certain amount of "buy-in" to make a bug tracker worth the additional overhead.
Bug trackers are definitely worth it, in part because they formalize the work-flow required to implement new features and fix bugs. You always have a central place for your work load ("My bugs", "My tasks", etc). Pretty much every environment that I've worked at in the last few years has had a bugtracker of some sort so I'm not sure what to recommend in terms of buy in. Do you have more than one scientist coming to you for feature requests/bug fixes? If so, then perhaps you could use the bug tracker as a conflict resolution system of sorts. Do you have a boss/manager? Then having a bug tracking system would provide a lot of insight for your boss.
In general, as a software developer, bug trackers have been very useful. My suggestion would be to think of ways that a bugtracker would enhance your & your coworker's life. Maybe do a quick demo.
HTH.
In my experience, the overhead of a bugtracker is noticeable but definitely worth it! The catch is that if you decide to use a bug tracker, it can only succeed if everyone uses it. Being the sole user of such a system is not quite as useful.
Having said that, even if I am the sole user (which tends to happen a lot), I still install the bugtracker (typically trac). If you use it religiously (enter every thing that comes in through different means as a bug and ALWAYS refer to bug# in your replies), the team generally tends to pick it up over time.
Enter milestones (or whatever your tracker of choice calls them) and link bugs to them. Whenever someone asks what the progress of something is, call up the milestone report or equivalent and SHOW THEM. This helps convert people from thinking of the bug tracker as a nuisance to realizing that it can be a source of invaluable information.
I suggest taking a look at Strategy 2 in this Joel On Software article. He basically argues that if your company doesn't use bug tracking software, you should just start using it for yourself, and demonstrate how it helps get things done. Also ask other people to use it to submit bugs so they see how easy it is to use.
Even if you're the sole user (it happened to me once), it's worth it. You can start saying things like, "Bug 1002 is blocking. Who can help me with that so we can move on to this and that feature."
We found redmine to be a better than trac simply because it is easier to use. It does lack some of the features found in some of the other systems, but this also means there is less stuff for non-programmers to have a problem with. It's also very nice because it allows someone other than the programmers to get a feel for the current state of the system. If there is a large number of critical unclosed bugs it is easier to make people understand that their requested feature will have to wait a little.
This is a similar question.
What's the Most Effective Workflow Between People Who Develop Algorithsm and Developers?
It does NOT speak to which bugtracker is best, but it does speak to how to convince the physicists to buy-in.
Using subversion? Here's a /. post that is helpful:
Best Integrated Issue-Tracker For Subversion?
An in general, here's a Comparison of Issue Tracking Systems.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
As the title says, I'm starting one project right now, and trying to layout the infrastructure for the project (SVN, Email, Bug tracking, Online Forums, etc...)
So, Bugzilla or Mantis?
I think you'll find that your team will like either Trac or Redmine more than Bugzilla or Mantis. Both integrate nicely with Subversion. Both include wiki, forums, project management features...
Quick overview:
Trac: Very widely used and loved, written in python, huge community, lots of "plugins". A common complaint is that it doesn't support multiple projects out-of-the-box, but you can add a plugin to help with that.
Redmine: Written in RubyOnRails. Like Trac, but more complete out of the box. The authors of Redmine are trying to create a better Trac than Trac.
If you are interested in what others searching for bug trackers have written, comparing trackers to each other, I've put some links together here:
http://ifdefined.com/blog/post/2007/10/Links-to-other-comparisons-of-issue-trackers.aspx
If you on Windows, which I'm guessing you aren't, then also consider BugTracker.NET, an easy-to-use, very configurable bug tracking system in .NET/MS SQL Server. (Disclaimer: I'm the author).
I like mantis. It's simple and it gets the job done.
I've used Bugzilla and Mantis, but I prefer Mantis' simplicity. It's not as feature rich as Bugzilla but, I remember fighting with Bugzilla a lot more. Mantis is the kind of thing you can setup once then leave.
Mantis definitely wins on usability grounds over Bugzilla.
In particular, it is just a lot faster to log bugs on Mantis. Time to log bugs is a blocker for some people - I've heard it used as an excuse for not logging them, fixing them and pretending there was never a bug to fix (symptomatic of deeper team problems).
It wasn't until a client (currently using Basecamp, bleah!) canned the idea of Mantis because it wasn't pretty enough that I realised some people (as noted above) think it is ugly.
Compared to Bugzilla or another system we tried implementing, some weird European thing, Mantis is gorgeous.
I know Mantis scales well - a friend used it for the production of the movie Happy Feet. He customised it by adding one extra field to provide another level of categorisation.
Bugzilla is bigger, a larger community, more features, more power ... for that reason I've always prefered mantis ;) Mantis is as ugly as sin but for most projects it gives you what you need in a simple and intuative way.
If you have a large team, a big QA department and all the rest bugzillia may be a better fit. Small team that just needs to get stuff done - then mantis is probably better in my opinion.
The biggest feature missing from mantis (they may have added it since, this was a few years ago) is the reports feature so you can track progress with nice line and pie charts. However, I just wrote a simple PHP script to pull out the data and manually created them in Excel each week (only took 5 minutes or so). Not great but functionally sufficient for what we needed at the time.
However there online demos of both so I suggest you try them out and pick what suits you the best.
Mantis is great and very easy to setup
I have been using it for about 3 years
It has the following problems.
There is a 2 Meg limit on the file size that you can store in issue. This becomes a problem when you want to include screen shots of the problem.
If two people update the issue at the same time - Someone will lose data
I have used both and didn't like them at all, I prefer Trac, thou if you really need to choose between those two I'd go for Bugzilla
The integration for TRAC with subversion is real good (have a look at Assembla to see how the integration works )
Trac is also open source and its pretty simple to add new reports and stuff like that.
Mantis is great and simple,
simplicity is important as my clients are non technical people.
You could try Redmine. It gives you repo access, trackers, forums, wiki, calendar - in one place.
I have extensively used Bugzilla (default for projects at work) but Mantis gets my vote for easy setup and use.
I've heard good things about fogbugz but have yet to find an opportunity to use it.
http://www.fogcreek.com/FogBUGZ/
I prefer mantis. It performs nicely and is easily extend able either by the use of plugins or with by coding.
Another vote for Trac -- dead simple to get going, nice web-based view into your repository, etc.
Choosing the right bug tracker requires that you know who is going to use it (and how it is going to be used). I've used Bugzilla and Mantis and found Bugzilla better from a technical point of view but Mantis wins if some of your bug reporters are not programmers / not programmer minded. Its interface is less 'threatening' for a novice bugtracker user.
If you are going to have a private bugtracker you also need to consider the options it gives you to specify who is allowed to view/edit etc.
I've used bugzilla for a while, but Redmine get my vote. easy setup, very very intuitive.
Recently I've been doing lots of weekend coding, and have began to really need a bugtracker as things are gaining speed. This is probably the worst case scenario because I basically have to let things cool down over the week,so I simply can't remember the bugs in my head. So far I've been using a text file to jot down bugs,but I'd rather use something a bit better.
The biggest points here are ease of use and very little setup time.Don't want to spend more than an hour learning the basics and trying to install something. Also in my case I'm on a Mac so that would help, but solutions for other platforms are welcomed as they will likely help others.
FogBugz has a student/startup edition that's free indefinitely, for 2 or less users.
Personally, I use Excel. (Wait, come back, I'm not crazy!) For a bigger / team project, I've gotten a ton of mileage out of Bugzilla, but that tends to be kind of overkill for a one-person project.
But, a well-organized spreadsheet, with columns for things like "status", "description", "code module", "resolved date," etc, gets you pretty close to what you'd need for a small project. Sorting a spreadsheet by column isn't anywhere near a search, but its a whole lot better than "find in text file."
Heck, if you use Google docs rather than excel, you can even publish the thing as an RSS feed and get it anywhere.
And, the major advantage is that the setup time and learning curve are both effectively nil.
Addendum: And of course, the instant your "One-Person Bug Tracker" becomes a "Two-Person Bug Tracker" you must switch to something better. Bugzilla, FogBugz, anything. Trust me, I've been there.
Trac or Redmine are both pretty good. I don't know how easy they are to set up on a Mac.
It's worth mentioning that FogBugz also has a free version for up to 2 users, which would suit you. It is hosted so there is no installation and you can use something like Fluid to access it in its own window.
I don't think you need a full blown bugtracker for your scenario.
Try tiddly wiki, store each bug in a tiddler and give them tags like 'open' or 'closed'.
There is no installation required (only one html file), and it's very easy to use.
And platform neutral.
If you're working on a LAMPP stack, then for ease of setup and use I would probably recommend Mantis. It's written in PHP / MySQL and the only installation involved was specifying where the database should be created and what credentials should be used.
Oh, and its FOSS.
I would suggest Omnigroup's Omnifocus - it's an excellent task tracker, and if you just make the mental leap from bug to task, I think it works famously for one man projects as well as being an excellent way to organize your no doubt burgeoning task queue.
Eclipse has a really interesting system--I don't know why so few people seem to know about it.
It's tied in with their to-do list. It gives you the ability to enter bugs with as much or as little info as you like. You can tie it to versioning or an external bug tracker if you like. It's a decent bug tracker in itself.
The real trick is how it works with your source code.
Before you begin work you select a bug from the list. All the time you're coding, it tracks what files you are editing. It can close old tabs for you, and will also highlight areas of the source tree that you have modified a lot.
The nice thing is, you can go back to any bug you've edited an you will get your "Environment" back. Not only all your notes and stuff, but the same tabs will open up and the same sections of code in the navigator will be highlighted.
Also eclipse works with virtually any language, it's not just restricted to Java...
let me put in a good word for ditz - it's a bit bare-bones, but it has the invaluable feature that bugs are checked into your repository. it's also very easy to use once you get used to its way of doing things
You can use fogbugz for free if you're a one man team.
It's super easy to use and quick to learn.
They made it so that bugs are really easy to enter, no mandatory fields.
I'm the author of BugTracker.NET mentioned in another post. If I were looking for a tracker for JUST ONE PERSON with MINIMUM hassle, I'd use FogBugz, because it's hosted. No installation, no need to worry about backups.
But, what are you doing about version control? Don't you have to worry about that too, and backing that up? If so, consider something like Unfuddle or CVSDude where you can get BOTH Subversion and Trac, or Subversion and Fogbugz.
I use Mantis at home and I'm happy with it. It can be a pain in the arse to get it working so you can choose to download a free and ready-made VM installation. Cannot be easier than that,
Maybe a spreadsheet would be the next logical step? I know it sounds really un-sexy, but if you're the only user, you don't have to worry much about others mucking it up, and it adds a few basic features over a text file like sorting. Then if you later need to graduate to something RDBMS-backed, you would likely have a feasible import path. I just know that for me, when working by myself, I don't tend to get around to putting bugs in anything that requires more care and feeding than that (of course when working with others the collaborative needs make a more defined repository a requirement, but that's a different story).
EDIT: After noting the availability of free, hosted access to FogBugz, I'm re-thinking the bar for care and feeding...
RT from BestPractical is great.
I also get a lot of mileage out of just keeping a list of items in a text file with vi, if I can express them all in one line. This is usually for many small todo items on a single component or task.
I've tried bugtracker.net and even though it's a little bit rough on the edges, it's free and was built with ASP.NET:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=66812
Are you using a source control repository as well? If not, you really should, even though you're only a one-man team.
My personal preference is to use a VMWare Virutal Application (free) that offers no-hassle setup gives you access to both Trac and Subversion. You can find many different virual appliances through searching. Here is one example of getting a Trac/SVN virtual appliance up and running:
http://www.rungeek.com/blog/archives/how-to-setup-svn-and-trac-with-a-virtual-appliance/
Trac is an excellent project management tool that sports a bug tracker, wiki, and integrated source control management. It's adaptable to your needs, and fits me very well personally.
I use bugzilla for this purpose. Plus for me was that it has integration with Eclipse (precisely with Mylyn). FogBuzz has it to but AFAIK it is nonfree.
Plus it sits on my laptop so I can code and add/remove bugs when offline (it was biggest disadvantage of hosted solutions for me)
Installation was not a problem in Ubuntu (and any debian-based distro I suppose).
I dig ELOG in those cases, it's more of a personal blog, but it's easy to handle and install, the data is local on your computer and you can search all entries via fulltext. Always sufficed for me.
If you have a Windows box with IIS and MSSQL (including SQL Server Express), you should look at Bugtracker.net. It is free and open source (you get the source code), and it is extensible.
Even if you are a one man shop, having a free bug tracking system with this much power will allow you to grow over time, because it is fairly easy to add future users into the system.
You can also customize it for the look of your organization, business or product.
Ontime 2008 by Axosoft is free for a single user licence. It's industrial strength and will give you alot more that just bug tracking!
http://www.axosoft.com
Jira which now has free personal licenses.
I am using leo for this purpose. To be more specific, its cleo plugin.
Of course you might need to spend some time to get used to leo, but it will pay off.
A flat text file is just a list, an Excel spreadsheet is a two-dimensional list.
leo lets you keep the data in a tree! And it also has clones.
this is a bit of a philosophical question. I am adding a small feature to my software which I assume will be used by most users but only maybe 10% of the times they use the software. In other words, the software has been fine without it for 3 months, but 4 or 5 users have asked for it, and I agree that it should be there.
The problem is that, due to limitations of the platform I'm working with (and possibly limitations of my brain), "the best I can do" still has some non-critical but noticeable bugs - let's say the feature as coded is usable but "a bit wonky" in some cases.
What to do? Is a feature that's 90% there really "better than nothing"? I know I'll get some bug reports which I won't be able to fix: what do I tell customers about those? Should I live with unanswered feature requests or unanswered bug reports?
Make sure people know, that you know, that there are problems. That there are bugs. And give them an easy way to proide feedback.
What about having a "closed beta" with the "4 or 5 users" who suggested the feature in the first place?
There will always be unanswered feature requests and bug reports. Ship it, but include a readme with "known issues" and workarounds when possible.
You need to think of this from your user's perspective - which will cause less frustration? Buggy code is usually more frustrating than missing features.
Perfectionists may answer "don't do it".
Business people may answer "do it".
I guess where the balance is is up to you. I would be swaying towards putting the feature in there if the bugs are non-critical. Most users don't see your software the same way you do. You're a craftsman/artist, which means your more critical than regular people.
Is there any way that you can get a beta version to the 4-5 people who requested the feature? Then, once you get their feedback, it may be clear which decision to make.
Precisely document the wonkiness and ship it.
Make sure a user is likely to see and understand your documentation of the wonkiness.
You could even discuss the decision with users who have requested the feature: do some market research.
Just because you can't fix it now, doesn't mean you won't be able to in the future. Things change.
Label what you have now as a 'beta version' and send it out to those people who have asked for it. Get their feedback on how well it works, fix whatever they complain about, and you should then be ready to roll it out to larger groups of users.
Ship early, ship often, constant refactoring.
What I mean is, don't let it stop you from shipping, but don't give up on fixing the problems either.
An inability to resolve wonkiness is a sign of problems in your code base. Spend more time refactoring than adding features.
I guess it depends on your standards. For me, buggy code is not production ready and so shouldn't be shipped. Could you have a beta version with a known issues list so users know what to expect under certain conditions? They get the benefit of using the new features but also know that it's not perfect (use that their own risk). This may keep those 4 or 5 customers that requested the feature happy for a while which gives you more time to fix the bugs (if possible) and release to production later for the masses.
Just some thoughts depending on your situation.
Depends. On the bugs, their severity and how much effort you think it will take to fix them. On the deadline and how much you think you can stretch it. On the rest of the code and how much the client can do with it.
I would not expect coders to deliver known problems into test let alone to release to a customer.
Mind you, I believe in zero tolerance of bugs. Interestingly I find that it is usually developers/ testers who are keenest to remove all bugs - it is often the project manager and/ or customer who are willing to accept bugs.
If you must release the code, then document every feature/ bug that you are aware of, and commit to fixing each one.
Why don't you post more information about the limitations of the platform you are working on, and perhaps some of the clever folk here can help get your bug list down.
If the demand is for a feature NOW, rather than a feature that works. You may have to ship.
In this situation though:
Make sure you document the bug(s)
and consequences (both to the user
and other developers).
Be sure to add the bug(s) to your
bug tracking database.
If you write unit tests (I hope so),
make sure that tests are written
which highlight the bugs, before you
ship. This will mean that when you
come to fix the bugs in the future,
you know where and what they are,
without having to remember.
Schedule the work to fix the bugs
ASAP. You do fix bugs before
writing new code, don't you?
If bugs can cause death or can lose users' files then don't ship it.
If bugs can cause the application to crash itself then ship it with a warning (a readme or whatever). If crashes might cause the application to corrupt the users' files that they were in the middle of editing with this exact application, then display a warning each time they start up the application, and remind them to backup their files first.
If bugs can cause BSODs then be very careful about who you ship it to.
If it doesn't break anything else, why not ship it? It sounds like you have a good relationship with your customers, so those who want the feature will be happy to get it even if it's not all the way there, and those who don't want it won't care. Plus you'll get lots of feedback to improve it in the next release!
The important question you need to answer is if your feature will solve a real business need given the design you've come up with. Then it's only a matter of making the implementation match the design - making the "bugs" being non-bugs by defining them as not part of the intended behaviour of the feature (which should be covered by the design).
This boils down to a very real choice of paths: is a bug something that doesn't work properly, that wasn't part of the intended behaviour and design? Or is it a bug only if if doesn't work in accordance to the intended behaviour?
I am a firm believer in the latter; bugs are the things that do not work the way they were intended to work. The implementation should capture the design, that should capture the business need. If the implementation is used to address a different business need that wasn't covered by the design, it is the design that is at fault, not the implementation; thus it is not a bug.
The former attitude is by far the most common amongst programmers in my experience. It is also the way the user views software issues. From a software development perspective, however, it is not a good idea to adopt this view, because it leads you to fix bugs that are not bugs, but design flaws, instead of redesigning the solution to the business need.
Coming from someone who has to install buggy software for their users - don't ship it with that feature enabled.
It doesn't matter if you document it, the end users will forget about that bug the first time they hit it, and that bug will become critical to them not being able to do their job.