Confirmed users
513
edits
Auto-tools/Projects/PublicES: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→ETL Issues
Klahnakoski (talk | contribs) |
Klahnakoski (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
=== ETL Issues === | === ETL Issues === | ||
* Python and Javascript property access is different enough to cause a multitude of bugs when just performing naive conversion: For example, converting Javascript <tt>if (!a.b){ ... }</tt> to Python <tt>if not a["b"]: ....</tt> can emit key exceptions and simply take the wrong path when dealing with empty sets. | * Python and Javascript property access is different enough to cause a multitude of bugs when just performing naive conversion: For example, converting Javascript <tt>if (!a.b){ ... }</tt> to Python <tt>if not a["b"]: ....</tt> can emit key exceptions and simply take the wrong path when dealing with empty sets. | ||
* Alias analysis is error prone: | * Alias analysis is error prone: Users' email addresses can be changed, and there is no record of those changes. The bug activity table has recorded changes for emails that "apparently" do not exist. Well, they do exist, but are aliased. The old ETL used reviews to do some matching. The new version uses the CC lists which have more information. The problem is fundamental corruption in the history caused by (possible) direct poking of the database. This corruption must be mitigated with fuzzy logic. | ||
* It took a while to build up a library of tests that could be used to verify future changes. More tests => more test code => more bugs in test code => more bugs found in production code => more tests. Sometimes it seemed endless. | * It took a while to build up a library of tests that could be used to verify future changes. More tests => more test code => more bugs in test code => more bugs found in production code => more tests. Sometimes it seemed endless. | ||