All EVE players read here - VERY IMPORTANT - Page 2

Mark · 06-12-2007, 19:15

No, it reeks of not including that particular scenario in the testplan. Let's not go bashing the QA people here. Installation testing is oft neglected throughout the entire industry - people assume they're testing the software and forget about the ancillory bits like install/uninstall/upgrade testing. Looks like they did that, and got bitten. I've done that too, and got bitten. Fortunately in my case it only stuffed up our software and not the entire system.

Del Lardo · 06-12-2007, 19:29

Sorry but IMO not testing the installation process on a computer running XP (an OS that a huge %age of their customers use) on the default disk is complacent. You cannot afford to make assumptions in software testing.

Mark · 06-12-2007, 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Del Lardo

You cannot afford to make assumptions in software testing.

Unless someone's going to die if the system goes wrong (transportation/health/military) then that's pretty much nonsense I'm afraid, and even in the death scenario I'd argue it's still nonsense. I'm more likely to win the lottery twice on the same day than I am to see a game, of all things, that can justifiably claim 100% testing.

Del Lardo · 06-12-2007, 19:45

Sorry but we are going to have to agree to disagree. If you are releasing software that is going to be installed on that many computers you simply cannot assume that something is going to work just because it's been fine for the last 63 releases.

Installing software on a XP machine on the C drive should be a standard test case.

Mark · 06-12-2007, 21:13

Ah, now that's different from a general 'cannot make assumptions'. A specific assumption that a user will not install something to C: drive on Windows XP would be ridiculous, but was it really an assumption, or was it simply overlooked in the rush to get a project out the door (and I'll wager we've all done that at least once).

PS - I test our software installing to C: and D: drives.

Dymetrie · 06-12-2007, 23:24

I believe I should get involved and say that CCP are actually a damn good company and run eve bloody well.

This is a single mistake (which I agree, should never have occured, but did) but unfortunately will be the one which is likely to be most talked about rather than the hundreds of fantastic things they've implemented in the last four+ years with EVE.

I for one still hold them in high regard (well, running Vista, game directory on a different drive and due to social life haven't installed the patch yet

) and am soooooooooo glad they're not SOE who managed to screw up the other MMO which I used to play....

After_8 · 07-12-2007, 07:58

To be fair, CCP can only accept so much blame for this. The fact that Windows actually allows any non-system program to touch boot.ini in the first place is absolutely ridiculous. This sort of issue shouldn't even be possible to produce.

Garp · 15-12-2007, 11:08

http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=526

Interesting post situation analysis. I found this particularly interesting, given the level of fuss this patch accrued:

Quote:

Why didn't you catch this during testing? It's partly the reason above, not enough time to test the graphics content upgrade thoroughly to notice it removed this file. We also discovered that we didn't have enough variation in our hardware and operating system setups since Windows will recover if it's on the first partition of the boot drive. It seems that most computers at CCP are set up this way and this was my personal experience in the evening of the release. I upgraded my Revelations 2.3 client to Trinity Classic and from there to Trinity Premium. I logged onto Tranquility, then logged directly out again and rebooted my computer without any visible problems. Needless to say, we have already revised our testing procedures to make sure this does not happen again.

So in theory the number of people negatively affected would have been small. Most folks do install windows onto their primary partition.

Feek · 15-12-2007, 11:11

Have you seen the patch notes for Trinity 1.0.1?

Quote:

Please note: No Windows System files were harmed during the creation or deployment of this patch.

After_8 · 15-12-2007, 12:10

I've later learned that this issue also does not affect people who have installed XP SP2. Which, considering how long SP2 has been out and how important it is, as far as I'm concerned means that anybody who was vulnerable to it had it coming.

06-12-2007, 23:24	#16
Dymetrie A large glass of Merlot Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Letchworth with a Lightsaber Posts: 5,819	I believe I should get involved and say that CCP are actually a damn good company and run eve bloody well. This is a single mistake (which I agree, should never have occured, but did) but unfortunately will be the one which is likely to be most talked about rather than the hundreds of fantastic things they've implemented in the last four+ years with EVE. I for one still hold them in high regard (well, running Vista, game directory on a different drive and due to social life haven't installed the patch yet ) and am soooooooooo glad they're not SOE who managed to screw up the other MMO which I used to play.... __________________ Khef, Ka and Ka-Tet....

07-12-2007, 07:58	#17
After_8 Nice weak cup of Earl Grey Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 47	To be fair, CCP can only accept so much blame for this. The fact that Windows actually allows any non-system program to touch boot.ini in the first place is absolutely ridiculous. This sort of issue shouldn't even be possible to produce. __________________ "I'm happy to grow up, but I won't pretend that fun things aren't still fun out of fear of looking silly."

15-12-2007, 12:10	#20
After_8 Nice weak cup of Earl Grey Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 47	I've later learned that this issue also does not affect people who have installed XP SP2. Which, considering how long SP2 has been out and how important it is, as far as I'm concerned means that anybody who was vulnerable to it had it coming. __________________ "I'm happy to grow up, but I won't pretend that fun things aren't still fun out of fear of looking silly."

06-12-2007, 19:15	#11
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	No, it reeks of not including that particular scenario in the testplan. Let's not go bashing the QA people here. Installation testing is oft neglected throughout the entire industry - people assume they're testing the software and forget about the ancillory bits like install/uninstall/upgrade testing. Looks like they did that, and got bitten. I've done that too, and got bitten. Fortunately in my case it only stuffed up our software and not the entire system.

06-12-2007, 19:29	#12
Del Lardo Absinthe Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cambridge Posts: 2,539	Sorry but IMO not testing the installation process on a computer running XP (an OS that a huge %age of their customers use) on the default disk is complacent. You cannot afford to make assumptions in software testing.

06-12-2007, 19:45	#14
Del Lardo Absinthe Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cambridge Posts: 2,539	Sorry but we are going to have to agree to disagree. If you are releasing software that is going to be installed on that many computers you simply cannot assume that something is going to work just because it's been fine for the last 63 releases. Installing software on a XP machine on the C drive should be a standard test case.

06-12-2007, 21:13	#15
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Ah, now that's different from a general 'cannot make assumptions'. A specific assumption that a user will not install something to C: drive on Windows XP would be ridiculous, but was it really an assumption, or was it simply overlooked in the rush to get a project out the door (and I'll wager we've all done that at least once). PS - I test our software installing to C: and D: drives.