Don’t get me started about testing.. Basic functionality sometimes that worked in previous versions did not work in many of the release 1’s of a new version.. And these were functionalities that sometimes hindered development efforts. And sometimes even new features added did not work in some scenarios (at least this is somewhat excusable as they are new features).. But old known to be working functionality that just stops working? Some of it very basic functionality that is used in almost everyday development such as writing queries in workflow and saving that piece of workflow..
The lamest one I had seen was in version 7.6.3 initial release.. Using a field in a qualification that didn’t belong to the primary form, wouldn’t allow you to save that piece of workflow after complaining about unidentified field referenced.... This worked since the world began as far as the ARS is concerned (or at least since I started working on it on version 3.2).. So you could no longer create dynamic kind of menus like the CTI menus that used field ID’s from another form to make a comparison.. As a workaround, I used a temporary field from the current form, saved the workflow – exported it and edited the defs to fix the ID so it would reference that other form and then import in place.. I remember similar bugs in the initial release of version 7 too, for eg the Verify button on the AIE console.. never worked and complained about your job having some errors in its definitions, when it was actually a valid job. Also try adding a column to a table field after overlaying OTB forms and creating a field in one and adding a column to a table field in the other which points to the new field on the source table.. When saving the form the studio throws up.. This seemed to have been fixed in the new release that was available for demo at the RUG, which I guess is the current release 2.. These kind of bugs are indicative of either the ‘quality’ or ‘quantity’ of testing done before official release... I suspect its more a problem with the ‘quality’ and not the ‘quantity’.. Joe From: John Doe Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 10:29 AM Newsgroups: public.remedy.arsystem.general To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 ** Oh Matt...here we go again my friend, Unfortunately, this compatibility matrix answer falls into the all to familiar category of "latest versions and higher are supported." This was also the answer to Windows 2008 server 64 bit. Because the compatibility matrix states as long as the VENDOR does not significantly change their software higher versions are supported. When is their a higher version not supported? Answer - there isn't a time. Respectfully, this falls under the SDLC of release it and the community will find the bugs. I never used to see this happen before the exponential growth of ARS into the BMC movement. Mostly, after 7.6. I understand with growth, this happens. But at what point to engineers tell management this type of reasoning does not work in the technical world? I appreciate the need to grow. Certainly, but at what cost? Why did Firefox become a replacement for IE? IE had much larger growth. The answer is because Firefox was engineered better and due to this performed better on javascript. Sometimes, it is not always about growth. In the case of Windows 2008 server 64 bit the OS location for the ODBC drivers (folder location) were changed. This was not caught when you would think, during testing of the product. We (the customer) caught this after the official release. We filed an RFE, which has been out in RFE land somewhere since. The official explanation and fix was blamed on Microsoft because, you guessed it, they changed the software. My question is, when is it ever BMC's responsibility to test the software for complete compatibility prior to release. Not just operational compatibility? Since this fell under the statement "compatible unless the vendor has any significant changes" we fell under the party line of "it's compatible". When we demonstrated the incompatibility with the ODBC we were met with silence. As seems to be a popular technique currently employed by premier support. I mean no disrespect because I know those engineers are doing the best they can. But they are handcuffed. I am not trying to sandbag here. What I am trying to say is that statement on the compatibility matrix is a catch all and an example of a greater problem. If you use that statement, one could logically say that as long as the date/version of the vendor's release is a higher more current version, BMC is compatible. Which is extremely presumptuous and the flaw with that logic is demonstrated above. That is just one of so many examples. This is the unfortunate case with the compatibility matrix and strategically, BMC currently. I understand your explanation Matt. I respect it. However, it's just not technically sound from an engineer standpoint. It is sales and management coating over a technical flaw with the system. A wise salesman once told me, never invite engineers to a demo. Why? Because sales explanations are not compatible with engineers. Back to the point. In order for this compatibility matrix statement to really work, Microsoft, Oracle/Sun and Red Hat would need to go to BMC and explain every change that was made to the OS (and DB's etc). I don't believe that will happen and honestly, BMC has probably realized this too. BMC is a one customer among millions to these companies. However, in lue of this, complete and correctly engineered test scenarios would catch things like ODBC folders simply being placed in a different directory. Instead this compatibility matrix is the fix. I am not trying to be blunt or short in any way but I have seen this become the standard answer from BMC during 7.5 and after 7.6 release. Unfortunately, it appears the user community is becoming the test engineers for BMC. Matt, this is one of the specific problems we spoke about in the other posts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chowdhury, Tauf" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:31 AM Subject: Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 ** You’re a lucky man. Tauf Chowdhury | Forest Laboratories, Inc. Service Portfolio Manager Infrastructure – Service Management Office: 631.858.7765 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Shafqat Ayaz Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 4:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 ** I have been using IE9 with Windows 7 with ITSM 7.6.04 without any problems for a while now. Shafqat Ayaz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 7:03 PM Subject: Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 ** Could these tips be added to a BMCDN document to make them available without having to open a support issue? Jason On Oct 12, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Matt Laurenceau <[email protected]> wrote: ** The "or higher" statement on the compatibility matrix is the answer: IE9 is supported :) BMC Support has tips to optimize performances. Take care, Matt Laurenceau Senior Community Ambassador, BMC Communities [email protected] Follow me @Matt_L Skype: matt.laurenceau On 12 oct. 2011, at 20:54, Guillaume Rheault <[email protected]> wrote: ** There have been posts that there are problems with ITSM 7.6.04 and IE 9 Whether ITSM 7.6.00 is compatible with IE 9... you may be the first one to find out! Guillaume ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [[email protected]] on behalf of Spangler Robert C CIV USSTRATCOM/JWAC [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 ** We are getting ready to upgrade to Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9. Does ARS 7.5 and ITSM 7.6 support these? Thanks _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
