Tech Master: Re: why reprocess the whole set of code because of one error?
Since CSGI's tool is driven by a set of "rules", then the entire conversion done with the set of rules that created the error is highly suspect. Note that MOT only found one error. That doesn't mean there was only one error there. This is speculation, for sure, but depending on how severe the error was, MOT might have just stopped testing until the "rule" was fixed and the whole set of code re-converted with the new set of rules.
If the error was found somewhere during the initial setup phase of the processing, then additional testing would have been useless, as it would have been based on an invalid execution environment.
Calling CSGI to clarify what this error was would probably not be worth the time. If it was a severe error, they would soft-pedal it enough to make it sound like a minor annoyance. If it was just a minor annoyance, then it would sound like a minor annoyance. Either way, you get the same answer. The only way to judge the true severity of the error is to talk directly with the programmers responsible for running the tests and see what their opinions are. They'll probably be very negative about the whole thing because it would have impacted their ability to get their jobs done.
Note that I'm not picking on CSGI and how they would most likely respond. Other companies would do the same. They will always position themselves in their own best light. Makes sense to me.
I wish everything involved with the Y2K problem were as simple as black and white, or right and wrong. Unfortunately, there are so many shades of gray and degrees of 'wrongness' involved that just about anything that can be said will be studied and interpreted positively by the CSGI supporters, and negatively by the CSGI detractors. Again, this is not unique to CSGI.
Reality sux, eh?
TED |
