In the announcement about the proposed PR 3215 that massively affects UNLs,
@Edward wrote
"I won't wait for a code review. The code involved is too tricky to
understand in an hour or five."
This statement contains two red flags. If it's too tricky for a code
review, there's something out of whack somewhere. The answer isn't to skip
code review, it's to figure out how to make it more accessible so that it
*can* be commented on and reviewed.
One important aspect of that is having requirements. If we had a proposed
set of requirements for a change to fix a well-defined problem, we probably
wouldn't be in the fix we're in right now about this PR. The Leo community
could have commented on the requirements and perhaps suggested changes.
True, I seem to be the only part of the community that has responded, but
maybe others would have.
Then changes could have proposed and it could be explained how they would
work to satisfy the requirements. And once that all seemed all right, then
tests could have ben written, the details could have been implemented and
tested.
I'm not suggesting that written requirements would be needed for minor
changes or bug fixes. But for something which is too complicated to
review? And without requirements, you can't really write proper tests,
either The way it has worked in this case, the "requirements" live in one
person's head, are not very well specified, and are subject to rapid
change. (I'm like that, too! But sometimes, I do write requirements just
for myself.)
Yes, it might have taken longer to formulate some requirements and let the
community digest and comment on them. But there was no need for speed.
The impetus for this was not a critical bug. There was no need to rush
major, breaking changes.
If I had seen some requirements, I would have asked to add one similar to
this -
*Backwards Compatibility*
1. Existing UNL-consuming code shall work without changes.
2. CTRL-Click navigation to legacy UNLs shall continue to work
correctly.
3. The status bar shall continue to display a representation of the
path to the selected node.
Now, maybe item 1. wouldn't be possible. Then we could have had a
discussion about why not, and how to handle using the new UNLs with
existing functions. We could have changed that requirement to make it
clear what was supposed to be accomplished. If we had a sketch of proposed
changes, we could have seen where method signatures were changed, and if
that had been intended or a mistake.
All this would have made Felix's life easier, too! And I imagine that he
would have had some good input to contribute.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/2eaa6d8b-c6aa-43d6-91f7-3bd25459575cn%40googlegroups.com.
