Re: [BUG!!!!]Hit points for non-humanoids (maybe others) totally FUBARed
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Lizard <lizard@m...> wrote:
> On 06:42 PM 8/31/2004, Devon Jones said....work
> >I know I for one had a hard
> >time not being offended by the characterization of my last year of
> >(GMGen) as a waste of time.not
> I apologize. I didn't mean to imply it was a waste of time. It is
> something *I* need, but you know your customer base better than Ido. If
> most users are clamoring for it, then, you would be right to ignoreme.
> I'm glad I was able to help pin the bug down to default monsters.
> this helps, as I can ignore all 1 hit dice humanoids and justcorrect the
> others; this SERIOUSLY reduces the error checking I have to do.which
> As a programmer, let me note something like default monsters --
> creates a seperate 'mode' for character creation -- smells like adebugging
> nightmare, as it means almost everything needs to be checked twice.It's
> obvious from the early responses that most of the dev team leavesit off by
> default. I can very much attest, from 15 years of personalexperience, the
> problem with 'programmer testing'. You use a system with a specificset of
> options, preferences, and so on, and everything works fine. Bugs inother
> modes can linger for months or *years* because no programmer on thedev
> team ever uses a specific option.testing --
> Testing -- REAL testing, mind-numbing precise, ritualistic,
> isn't fun. And if it's not fun, no one will do it for free. This isa major
> weakness of open source - it requires users to report bugs, becausethe
> developers are not going to find any but the most egregious. No onewho is
> a skilled programmer is going to be satisfied or happy doing thetedious
> job of QAing, and those people who are skilled QAers will do it formoney
> only, 'cause it ain't fun. (Of course, there are exceptions, butthat's the
> general rule.)suggestions and
> If I get a chance, I will try to write up a formal list of
> issues brought about by using PCGen for 8 hours a day for a monthsolid.
If you do get a chance to write up that list, I would be very happy
to take a look at what you have. I am in charge of the QA team, and
we are working on making the tests that we have better, and easier to
run (ie as automatic as possible.) Any information on failures is
useful, assuming that we can extract what the failure is. It is easy
for us to miss a problem in the volume of traffic that is generated
on the various PCGen lists (I watch seven lists, and I'm sure that
there are some that I am missing.)
Unforunately, it is all too easy for us to miss the same thing over
and over. We (the QA team) are supposed to be testing the interface,
testing the output sheets, testing the core functionality, verifying
the data sets accuracy,... it would take a large team of experienced
testers a while just to work out what to test, and how. Throw on to
the top, the myriad ambiguities within a source (RSRD for example),
compound that with all of the other sources out there, and then try
and adjudicate what the *proper* answer is.
Reed, QA SB, BoD
- There has been an awful lot of activity lately on both the data and
code teams (including a fix for this and many other items!).
Hopefully we'll have a release date soon for 5.7.5 (which would still
be an alpha). I imagine it will be sometime this week (maybe next
--- In email@example.com, James Dempsey <jdempsey@a...> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> Joe Medica wrote:
> > OK, I should have read the entire thread first.
> > Do you have an idea of when this will make it to a beta or production
> > release? 5.7.5 maybe?
> > Thanks.
> > Joe Medica
> It's in CVS, so 5.7.5 will have the fix.
> James Dempsey
> PCGen Code Monkey