rlkd@opusys.UUCP (Dattatri R.L.K) (10/13/89)
>>E-mail address for Motif Bugs
Bugs can be sent to "motif-defect" OR "uec-defect".
I have sent 3 bug reports (and fixes) so far.
When I called them a week back, they had about *600* bugs in their database.
DataTree R.L.K.
E-mail: {uunet,sun}!opusys!rlkd vania@osf.ORG (Vania Joloboff) (10/13/89)
Dattatri R.L.K (opusys!rlkd@uunet.uu.net) writes in Message-Id: <419@opusys.UUCP>;Date: 12 Oct 89 17:01:41 GMT > Bugs can be sent to "motif-defect" OR "uec-defect". No, bugs must be sent to "motif-defect" only. > When I called them a week back, > they had about *600* bugs in their database. Right. First, we have in the data base all the bugs since the project started one year ago, including bugs found during development. Second, MOTIF represents 300,000 lines of code. Consider an average number of bugs in C code (some people consider 1 in 100 lines as reasonable) and compute how many bugs you can expect. The MOTIF libraries have been passed with a Branch Flow Analysis Tool showing that the regression test suite is covering 85% of the code. We know the bugs are in those 15% left and there may be one per line in this code. However we are confident in the overall quality. Vania
rprobst@SUN.COM (Richard Probst) (10/14/89)
> > When I called them a week back, > > they had about *600* bugs in their database. > Right. First, we have in the data base all the bugs since the project > started one year ago, including bugs found during development. Does this mean that the 600 bugs includes some bugs found during development and since fixed (what we call closed bugs), or are there 600 open bugs, not yet fixed, some of which were found during development, others of which were reported by customers? If the 600 number includes some bugs that have since been fixed, what is the count of currently open bugs in Motif? (Note: "Open Bugs" is *NOT* a Sun trademark ;-) > Second, MOTIF represents 300,000 lines of code. Don't be defensive. It's a well-known phenomenon that user interface toolkits are large bodies of code that attract bug reports, since users are more affected by small defects in a user interface than in many other sorts of software. We have a saying here that "What you see is what you curse." --Richard
dbrooks@osf.osf.org (David Brooks) (10/16/89)
In article <8910132112.AA03882@paba.sun.com> rprobst@SUN.COM (Richard Probst) writes: > >Does this mean that the 600 bugs includes some bugs found during >development and since fixed (what we call closed bugs), or are >there 600 open bugs, not yet fixed, some of which were found during >development, others of which were reported by customers? The former. The bug reports date back to March, after the first development snapshot was made available to member licensees, and when the software wasn't even claimed to be complete. Plus there's the usual crop of programmer errors, documentation errors, enhancement requests and duplicates. (all this is proprietary information of course, but I don't think anyone would find it surprising). > If the >600 number includes some bugs that have since been fixed, what is >the count of currently open bugs in Motif? > > (Note: "Open Bugs" is *NOT* a Sun trademark ;-) I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours, Richard :-) There's only one that I'd consider a real show-stopper (I can hear licensees all over the world disagreeing right now). > > --Richard -- David Brooks dbrooks@osf.org Open Software Foundation uunet!osf.org!dbrooks 11 Cambridge Center Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
diamant@hpfcbig.SDE.HP.COM (John Diamant) (10/26/89)
> The MOTIF libraries have been passed with a Branch Flow Analysis > Tool showing that the regression test suite is covering 85% of the code. > We know the bugs are in those 15% left and there may be one per line > in this code. However we are confident in the overall quality. If you mean to imply that BFA coverage of code proves that no bugs exist in the code covered, I don't agree. BFA proves that the code was touched, not that it works. A lot of code is data sensitive in it's behavior and bugs may only appear with certain data, so it really is not a reasonable conclusion that there are no bugs left in the 85% which has been covered. John Diamant Software Engineering Systems Division Hewlett Packard Co. ARPA Internet: diamant@hpfclp.sde.hp.com Fort Collins, CO UUCP: {ihnp4!hpfcla,hplabs}!hpfclp!diamant
mayer@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Niels Mayer) (10/29/89)
> The MOTIF libraries have been passed with a Branch Flow Analysis > Tool showing that the regression test suite is covering 85% of the code. > We know the bugs are in those 15% left and there may be one per line > in this code. However we are confident in the overall quality. Does BFA make any sense at all for Xtoolkit based program? Much of the program flow inside an Xt program comes from executing code indirectly, via a function pointer whose value can seem pretty arbitrary from the point of vue of an unintelligent analysis program. Can BFA really tell you anything about programs that use such techniques to emulate "object oriented programming"? Seems like you'd need to do some pretty extensive dataflow analyses, along with being able to predict the outcomes of all possible input events sequences that could be generated when "1000 monkeys" get a hold of your program and start poking at it's interface. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Niels Mayer -- hplabs!mayer -- mayer@hplabs.hp.com Human-Computer Interaction Department Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto, CA. *