Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
If a user wants a feature, the feature request is a low priority, but the user finds and exploits a bug allowing to get to the same result as if the feature was present, what should I do as a developer ? Should I fix the bug (and lose a "feature") ?
Note : the bug is not a security threat, nor a data integrity threat.
Scenario #2 : We don't know if users are using the exploit as a "feature". Same question.
Well, this is more a question of personal preference rather than coding but...
If people were known to be using the bug/feature AND assuming we are 100% sure that the bug is not a security threat, I would leave it there until such a time as I could implement the feature properly.
I would not want to risk putting users off using a service (even if it meant they had to temporarily use a bug to do what they wanted).
However, if you thought no one was using the bug OR that it may me a security threat, I would fix it.
I feel like it depends. If they aren't using it maliciously, I'd continue to let them use the exploit and then be sure that whenever the feature is actually implemented you conform it to be similar to how the exploit works while keeping the user safe from crashes and the like.
I mean, if I had been using an exploit to enable a feature and suddenly I can't use any of the work I'd been doing I'd be rather upset. Also, of course be sure to tell the user that the exploit was fixed and replaced with a feature whenever you do get around to doing it.
I think you have 2 options:
option 1:
Make sure the bug isn't a security threat or a data integrity threat by doing good research into the bug. If you find out it really isn't risky to use the bug you can use it and maybe develop it further to make a good user experience.
option 2: disable it develop it in the way you want and release it.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
avoiding the obvious answer, "Maybe I shouldn't have been given this to work on."
Let's just assume I was given this as a complex 'test of my abilities to learn on the job'.
The app is using serverless framework and I understand the basics of the structure using AWS and where certain things go etc, but I am not used to the structure of the app i was given.
I have a folder for backend, app, and one for 'graph'. I would just like to know where to start? Is the suggested route to user 'serverless-offline' or being that I didn't design this app, should I go straight to plugging things into my AWS, and get it running that way? I know this is kind of a noob question, and regardless I'm just going to go ahead and start playing around with the two options, but I do have a small window of time to figure out how to get this running in a 'Dev' environment so I can give a quote on adding some new React things to the app.
Are you working for a consulting company that advertised you as an "expert" to a customer where you actually have a severe knowledge gap to even approach the project you've been put on?
If yes, you aren't going to get much more information here in a reasonable sized answer than you can easily find using a web search. In fact, your question is so vague that I personally think it's not answerable at all. So, get searching on your own, hopefully you can figure out enough stuff by the deadline that you/your company can "fake it until you make it".
If not, and you are an employee in a normal company, you should have some sort of knowledge transfer process in place where someone who is familiar with the application would tell you at least an overview of how it works and how to approach it for basic changes. Unless this person left the company and now there is nobody in house with the needed knowledge, which is your boss's/company's problem and - if they are a good company - they should give you a reasonable amount of time to figure out all of this stuff the hard way, in which case the answer is - again - get searching the web.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am contemplating writing a useful article in a field of my interest. There are many others (about 10-15) people interested in peer reviewing and collaborating on the same. I am not a prolific programmer, but I understand how GitHub works for version control.
Can I use it for writing a 4-5 page collaborative article (version control is very important part) or do you think a better alternative exists?
You certainly could, but I don't know if it's the best choice. A couple of questions come to mind. Is this a text-based document format or are you planning on doing your writing in something like MS Word? If the former then I think it could work well. If the latter I would say it may be less effective.
What about your other collaborators? Are they savvy enough to use a DVCS? That would have some influence as well. I don't know how strongly you need the document versioned, but I could see using git as overkill.
I've found that using Google Docs works well and has a revision history, although it's obviously not as robust as would be found in a VCS.
I think it would work great. The Ruby on Rails guides are on a publicly write/readable repository at GitHub, for instance. You get get Git things for free (branches, blame, general version control features), plus you'll have a reliable backup and publishing mechanism if you like.
Given that the contributers are computer literate enough to successfully use Git, that is.
If you write it in Markdown, you can throw inline HTML into it (just by itself like you can do on Stack Overflow). Easy to write, easy to style, etc.
You can, but on the other hand:
Most wikis allow rich-content pages easyly, are ready for collaborative editing and have versioning and version-management embedded in the core.
One promissing recent development is penflip (https://www.penflip.com/) which was created with the idea of being a "github for text".
Check this article to learn about the author's ideas http://madebyloren.com/github-for-writers
Consider using google docs. They have some kind of version control. And it is much more suitable for this kind of work.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
From the top, "source control" seems like a bad way to describe CA Harvest; it's a deployment control system, and it's actually pretty good at just deploying code. I've found it to be lacking when doing source control tasks, though.
If you've used Harvest;
what did it do right?
what couldn't it do?
what did it do with a workaround so hackish it took 3x longer than you'd expect?
(Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Harvest seems awesome for deployment control, enforcing steps along a deployment lifecycle, and getting a chain of approval for deployments to production. That said, it's missing on the developer-friendly side.
It seems like I need to use the Workareas; they let me put all the code on my local machine, so I can do development.
With Workareas, I can only synchronize from the repository, but not get a report of what just sync'ed in; I don't know what changed, or who changed it, or why.
To add comments to checkins using Workareas, you have to manually enable the functionality in the preferences, which is a huge red flag to me.
I can't seem to figure out how to find out what changed since a specific time; what changed since Friday at 5 PM, for example?
There aren't any atomic commits; I can't commit files as a group, then roll the group back later if something goes wrong. I can do it as a package, but that's heavyweight; a package should be able to contain hundreds of atomic commits/groups.
And worst of all, it's entirely unsupported by Stack Overflow and/or any other question-and-answer site I can find. If I can't figure it out... I'm shooting blind.
We're currently migrating away from Harvest.
Configuration management and code deployment. We have a pretty good process flow going.
Branching and merging. Horrible SCM tool really.
?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I've created an app, that is self-explanatory. What is the etiquette in the iPhone world: do I still need to have an About button that explains what the app does, website, email, all that? Or is that unnecessary?
I wouldn't consider it necessary, but then again I would get a second opinion about your app being self-explanatory; you wrote it after all :) Seriously, I've found a lot of "obvious" UI and behavior I've written over the years to be not so, and it's helped to have opinions from others (especially those who don't use computers for day-to-day work) to bring more clarity.
But from an etiquette standpoint, I'd say no: in fact if your app truly is self-explanatory it'll just get in the way of what your app does, which is what consumers are after.
I think that you almost always need one, especially in a paid application. You want it to be as easy as possible for your users to get in contact with you for support (no need to make an upset user angrier by making them search for your contact info), because happy users leave good reviews, and support requests often help you to figure out what needs work in your app. Additionally, if you release a free app but you also have some paid apps for sale, I think the free apps need an about screen that will send your users to your page on the App Store; after all, you might as well get some free, non-invasive promotion when giving away something.
The only time you probably don't want to include an about screen is when you don't want to hear from users. If you're giving away a free app, and you don't want to deal with people having problems with it, then don't even bother with an about box. Or if you're Apple, since about boxes in their apps would be redundant.
I don't entirely agree with zoul here. I think that every app should include information about how to contact the developer and/or get support if it's needed. Yes, you can put this information in the App Store listing, but that makes it more difficult for your customer. I'd say yes, add the About view.
The etiquette in the iPhone world is to design sane applications. If your application does not need an About screen, don’t do it. Those who want support can always check out your application description in the App Store.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been working on a small iPhone app that displays web content using the devices GPS context. I am hoping to list this application in the AppStore for free.
If I list the application under my name, does this create any considerable liability considerations?
Thanks in advance,
Ben
This is one of those questions that really belongs on a forum for IP lawyers. I'm not a lawyer, so this is somewhat speculative and should not be taken as legal advice.
A good rule of thumb is that anything you put in the public domain can open you up to legal liability. Whether you put your name on an application or not is irrelevant to whether or not you can be sued.
The open source people often include some boilerplate that amounts to "No express or implied warranty on this application, not even a promise that it will work and not brick your phone." How effective this boilerplate is would need a lawyer's perspective.
You appear to be in the USA, so the answer is "of course it does". And listing it in some other way also does. Anything you do, anywhere, at any time, that affects anyone in any way might well be taken as grounds for a lawsuit. If you want specific legal advice you should be talking to a lawyer.
IANAL, either. But if you give something away for free, something earnestly intended to help its users - and if you explain what it is, and whatever risks you're aware of - I don't think you have much to worry about. Certainly, you shouldn't. I say, do your best to make it good, safe, and all that, and set it free.