Jump to content


Photo

Bug reporting practices discussion


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#41 CamDawg

CamDawg

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

  • Member
  • 1502 posts

Posted 08 November 2017 - 05:10 PM

Here is a proposal for an intermediate result from this discussion (some action to be taken after all):
- some modders have actively participated in above discussion, so we can assume they are aware of the issue
- they have expressed to be displeased with the way their mods have been *hijacked* and mistreated with external fixes
- since those fixes are distributed through BWFixpack (as such being automatically installed by users of BWS), these attempts to improve mods have to be removed.
 
This applies to
- BG2Fixpack
- Ajantis BG2
- arestorationp
 
Not clear (since only represented by cited posts)
- strategems
Anyway, without the fixpack additions to strategems, the SCS for BG2EE and EET would become unusable after all.
 
Did I miss any other applicable mod?
 
 
 

Yes, we are at the same boat, it's slowly takes water.

So throw some dead weight over board...


I'm curious--what have I said that makes you think I want BG2 Fixpack (or any mod) excluded from BWFixpack?


Why is this Hypnotoad video so popu... ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
____
The Gibberlings Three - Home of IE Mods

The BG2 Fixpack - All the fixes of Baldurdash, plus a few hundred more. Now available, with more fixes being added in every release.


#42 The Imp

The Imp

    Not good, see EVIL is better. You'll LIVE.

  • Member
  • 4794 posts

Posted 08 November 2017 - 10:27 PM

I'm curious--what have I said that makes you think I want BG2 Fixpack (or any mod) excluded from BWFixpack?
Well, to tell you this, I am just going to quote you and then tell you what it says/implies:
Yes, this is the bare minimum I expect. Thank you.

In this case, it's worthless...
But if you're going to patch someone else's work, at minimum you have a duty--and personally, I'd call it an obligation--to inform them of the issues. That's not a lot to ask.
This implies, that you want us to explain every flip of a byte and change the BWS Fixpack does to every mod, in the future ... be it large, small or byte sized. And you want us to do it to every mod... there's going to be a lot of conflict in that, like I said I was the third ++ coder for the kit.ids fix, this is just an example I can very well explain, which is why I'll use it... and it only got solved after the current weidu coder that had the thing wrong in their own mods too, got noted on the fact that it was off in every mod, as they didn't see the whole problem, just parts of it. And so you don't get a free pass you were the second coder ... and it was wrong in multiple of your mods, which is where I started the count from, as I copied your fix and found it flawed. There was like I said 4 other solutions for the problem before the final... Leomar/Leonardo's was the forth, and there were actually several instances of it, as at one stage there was like a three dozens of Barbarians that it made. Not fun times.
And you want us to go through telling people all those solutions and how they are better than each others and so forth. That only fixes one problem... there's thousands of these things.
That's the negative reaction you are getting... I understand that this is not what you are trying to accomplish. Apparently.*

I started from mods I was able to solve the fix from... to sorta justify them, and I'll continue the same thing when I have the time and the inclination. But I'll never going to probably accomplish it, to complition, cause I am not that good of a coder, and the BW(S) Fixpack is not the only part of the tool.

*the apparently word is there to emphasize the so called 'surprise of the author', who wasn't actually surprised.

Now, of course ... you are actually wrong on your quotation, Roxanne wasn't likely actually referring to the BG2Fixpack sole'y, but to the BGT-weidu and the non-EE games of the BWS. Which would be sad.
Why, cause she already gave up on it a long time ago, in her own mod. Yes, I am referring to her as she, cause I don't actually know her gender but the name just implies it to be a her, whatever.
Now, that's just the image you are portraying, you HAVE to make sure that ... if that's the image you want to portray, then you say it to be so ! Or make sure that that's not the case.

*spoilers* reply to the future.
It's entirely possible that they would like to implement the fix in other/better way than it is in the Fixpack. Simple as that..
Well, we can't have this better way if it interrupts the installation from being completed, before you actually implement it. And you do know that there's a limited amount of memory space the brain can hold on the recent memory bank.

Edited by The Imp, 09 November 2017 - 01:11 AM.

Yep, Jarno Mikkola. my Mega Mod FAQ. Use of the BWS, and how to use it(scroll down that post a bit). 
OK, desert dweller, welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand. Ouh, actually it was still snow then.. but anyways.


#43 Cahir

Cahir
  • Member
  • 105 posts

Posted 08 November 2017 - 10:55 PM

Guys, you are way overreacting, neither Cam, Almateria nor Jastey told you to take off fixes for their mods (or for any other mod for that matter) from BWPFixpack. 

 

The only thing they have ever asked is to notify them (or any other active modder) about the bug, so they could act accordingly. It's entirely possible that they would like to implement the fix in other/better way than it is in the Fixpack. Simple as that. You act like if every modder start a crusade to shut down BWP entirely. Well, they have not. They are asking about the courtesy of bug notification.

 

The matter of old abandoned mod is a different thing. If there is no way to contact former modder I don't see any harm in fixing things via Fixpack, unless this modder emerges and would like these fixes to be taken down. It's his right to do so.

 

So chill out, grab a beer or something and don't let this going viral until someone says something he/she would regret.


Edited by Cahir, 08 November 2017 - 10:58 PM.


#44 Almateria

Almateria

    most garbage person

  • Modder
  • 933 posts

Posted 08 November 2017 - 11:30 PM

I'm not displeased. :(

It might come as a surprise but I think bug fixes are cool and good, it's just that I'd like to know when my stuff's meddled with so I can implement it sooner or later, without even asking for the fixpack to take it down lol. I'm literally chronically ill, it can take a while for me to have energy to do stuff. Like the last bug fix kinda went through a few months of delaus because I mostly couldn't move from the bed and ate through an IV. But I still wanna improve my mods, ok? 

 

 

 I say it's treason.

jeez relax.



#45 jastey

jastey
  • Staff
  • 1842 posts

Posted 09 November 2017 - 12:41 AM

Are we at this level of discussion? Putting words into the mouth of the other that were never said to make him/her look rediculous?

 

All I said was that in my opinion it's courtesy to try to communicate with the original modders / maintainers before just making a fix public.

 

 

A fix changes the mod's code - that is a fact we don't have to discuss about it's a "duh" instance because that's what the fix is for - and if the modder doesn't know about it, players lose, too - for example by experiencing bugs the modder can't help them with.

Note: I said "if the modder doesn't know about it", not "if they are included into the fixpack".



#46 The Imp

The Imp

    Not good, see EVIL is better. You'll LIVE.

  • Member
  • 4794 posts

Posted 09 November 2017 - 01:05 AM

Are we at this level of discussion? Putting words into the mouth of the other that were never said to make him/her look rediculous?
 
All I said was that in my opinion it's courtesy...

Apparently you have never been a part of a communication link that has a difference between what is said and what is received*. The worlds perception might vary very much from what is meant to be said. This was the commonality with the SCS(II) fixes too, they were eventually considered valid. At least from my perception... there was lack of communication there, yes.
And yes, there was a few mods I made that have had BW(P) Fixpack fixes that were never communicated to me. But I dealt with them. For example, the LStest and the --change-log procedures both have a BWP implementations too, but I never found them that much useful as my own recommendations. But I DO NOT recommend that the BWP would ever remove them. As they weren't actually mine per se. I also made sure that no such message was available to be received.

*I, vehemently would argue against this, but that's just my perspective. :P

 

Now, none of this will actually invalidate your original request... but you'll have to realize that it will be a quite much work for a single handsome and red smilyface, who will try it.

But insisting it doesn't make it any faster, except in the case of the lone idiot who's not blue, who is definitely not frowning now, that fell for starting it.

And jastey will have to look for fixes in the BWS Fixpack to her/his own mods that are in the German forums. I won't be going there. Well, but I have contacted jastey on it.

 

... TB#guest, 1PP, Tyris Flare, Kelsey.


Edited by The Imp, 09 November 2017 - 04:51 AM.

Yep, Jarno Mikkola. my Mega Mod FAQ. Use of the BWS, and how to use it(scroll down that post a bit). 
OK, desert dweller, welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand. Ouh, actually it was still snow then.. but anyways.


#47 -me-

-me-
  • Guest

Posted 09 November 2017 - 02:34 AM


A "duh" instance would be not realising functionality and stability takes precedence over courtesy and etiquette.
 
All I said was that in my opinion it's courtesy to try to communicate with the original modders / maintainers before just making a fix public.

See the DavidW/SCS example Camdawg mentioned earlier. The fixes were communicated to the modder. The modder was careless and ignored some of it. Later, he finds out it was in BWP; calls it a tweak disguised as a fix. Attributes it to malice. Then... after quite some time, he sees the reasoning for that tweak and sort of agrees.

#48 CamDawg

CamDawg

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

  • Member
  • 1502 posts

Posted 09 November 2017 - 06:39 AM

Yes, if the impression I've given is that I'm somehow against BWP or the Fixpack, or against fixes and compatibility, then I've utterly failed in trying to communicate my point. At the least I would think that my decade plus of being the lead on the community's largest Fixpack and Tweak pack would show I've got heavy investments in things working together, and working together well.

 

At its simplest, the current model for BW Fixpack is this:

 

They find a bug

They fix the bug

 

I'm suggesting that it should be:

 

They find a bug

They try and tell the author about it

They fix the bug

 

I thought the second step was courtesy, and was disabused of that pretty quickly. I would still argue that the second step is in BWP's own interests. (And yes, there are all sorts of scenarios where that second step isn't applicable.)

 

edit: Apparently SHS doesn't actually support bullet lists


Edited by CamDawg, 09 November 2017 - 06:40 AM.

Why is this Hypnotoad video so popu... ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
____
The Gibberlings Three - Home of IE Mods

The BG2 Fixpack - All the fixes of Baldurdash, plus a few hundred more. Now available, with more fixes being added in every release.


#49 -me-

-me-
  • Guest

Posted 09 November 2017 - 07:27 AM

"They try and tell the author about it"

This is actually a much more time-consuming (in addition to unnecessary) step than you casually seem to imply.


Wouldn't it be more fair to say:

-They find a bug
-They fix the bug

-The authors look into the BW fixpack once in a while (if they care about fixing things)
-Take the baton from here and include any outstanding fixes from the fixpack into their mods. Then inform bwp the fixes can be dropped.

#50 Roxanne

Roxanne

    Modder

  • Member
  • 3564 posts

Posted 09 November 2017 - 08:26 AM

The scenario - as long as I was aware or involved with BWFixpack - was always different one:

 

  • They find a bug  >>> a player finds a bug - in the abscence of any support he/she can find for the mod involved, the problem is reported on some general thread on SHS or G3. Some helpful soul proposes a solution to this player.
  • Some other player comes with the same problem - he is pointed to the solution and advised to tell the mod author. (It is understood that those finding bugs may want to tell the modder)
  • They try and tell the author about it Nothing happens, the issue is now a known bug and published.
  • They fix the bug The intermediate fix that has helped the users (i.e.it has been tested by at least two players) is put into fixpack for the benefit of all users. Some of them are overcome by new releases or taken aboard by the modder. Others stay, some of them for six years or more by now.

Those mysterious *they* do not chase after bugs to fix them. If at all, they pick up community knowledge and put it into a knowledge repository on github. This can be done by just anybody out there, but many shy away from that. Once the fix is in github, every user of BG games can make use of it by downloading BWFixpack - those using BWS get those fixes automatically.

 

I hope that makes it a bit clearer.

Nothing is done behind drawn curtains by "them*. Everybody is invited to look at it https://github.com/B...G-World-Fixpack. Everybody can contribute, comment etc. This is what such a repository is made for!

 

PS - The *authors* you find for the individual fixes on github have to be understood as the person who put the file into the repository. This is not necessarily the one who found the bug and made the report or created the fix, in most cases it is a kind of *secretary* who was able to handle the technical side of fixpack. If you see e.g. abg1 in 1000 cases, it just means that he was maintaining the tool for some time and collected the input from many sources and players.


Edited by Roxanne, 09 November 2017 - 08:38 AM.

The Sandrah Saga

another piece of *buggy, cheesy, unbalanced junk*

 


#51 Mirandel

Mirandel
  • Member
  • 64 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 04:11 AM

jastey, I meant no offence, please believe me. You do monitor all forums and fix bugs the moment they appear for every strange configuration users might have (my personal firsthand experience). With such care about your own work you might see any attempt of someone else to fix bugs in your mods as an unnecessary intrusion. But (!) you are absolutely unique in your ways. I can name several active modders here and on other forums who might even acknowledge the bug - and pretty fast, but will not fix it in any close future for whatever reason (not that important, no time, no mood, other priorities and so on). In that case community fix is a life (ok, game) saver.

 

"courtesy to try to communicate with the original modders / maintainers before just making a fix public" sounds excellent in theory but does not work (above those who do apply fixes explained it in details). And after all it's just a fix, a public one and easily noticeable. 

 

You say "players lose, too - for example by experiencing bugs the modder can't help them with" but chances of that happening are close to zero compare to guaranteed user's  suffering every time you, big modders, are getting into another clash over copyrights.  



#52 Mike1072

Mike1072
  • Member
  • 535 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 06:10 AM

@Mirandel

Fixes are not all created equally - sometimes a bug has a single straightforward fix, but that's not always the case. If there's a complex bug, and the person trying to fix it is unfamiliar with the code, they may fix it in a suboptimal way (solving one issue but creating others) or the fix might just mask the issue instead of correcting it.

None of this means that having those fixes is bad for players or modders. For players, a potentially working fix is better than no fix at all. For modders, at worst, they get alerted to an issue and at best, they get code already written that fixes the problem perfectly.

I think what CamDawg, jastey, and other modders are upset about is when those fixes are created and nobody tells the mod author. Then the mod author never finds out about the initial issue, can't verify if the fix works, can't include the fix in the official version of the mod, and might have to deal with reports of other issues that are hard to track down if there's anything wrong with the fix.

#53 Creepin

Creepin
  • Administrator
  • 1676 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 07:19 AM

I think what CamDawg, jastey, and other modders are upset about is when those fixes are created and nobody tells the mod author. Then the mod author never finds out about the initial issue.

So, why would not that mod author, if he really is interested in making his mod bug free, check BWFixpack on his own from time to time?


The Old Gold - v0.2 WIP (mod for BGT/BWP/BWS)


#54 jastey

jastey
  • Staff
  • 1842 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 07:27 AM

I think what CamDawg, jastey, and other modders are upset about is when those fixes are created and nobody tells the mod author. Then the mod author never finds out about the initial issue.

So, why would not that mod author, if he really is interested in making his mod bug free, check BWFixpack on his own from time to time?

Duh? Because if the mod author wasn't informed about fixes being included he might not know about it? The whole discussion started due to this insight.



#55 Creepin

Creepin
  • Administrator
  • 1676 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 07:30 AM


So, why would not that mod author, if he really is interested in making his mod bug free, check BWFixpack on his own from time to time?

Duh? Because if the mod author wasn't informed about fixes being included he might not know about it? The whole discussion started due to this insight.


One might almost think that the words "check" and "from time to time" was there for a reason...

The Old Gold - v0.2 WIP (mod for BGT/BWP/BWS)


#56 The Imp

The Imp

    Not good, see EVIL is better. You'll LIVE.

  • Member
  • 4794 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 11:36 AM

The question is: does searching directory names ( sorting is case sensitive!) or searching mod name is really so difficult?

Well, considering that the BW(S) Fixpack is no where near the BWS itself, and there's no link to it either in any of the project pages... I myself had to re-find it via google for cheese sake, after I switched computers, it still that *** hard. And that's not all of the BWS'es internals, what about the Area Patcher, LolFixer and BiG World Installpack etc tools that the BWS uses. Besides it being actually the BWS Fixpack, not BWP Fixpack.... :angry: 

And I can't find the BW(P) Fixpack's raw data either, just the v17. As I don't think there is one ?!?

 

Just curious... cause I have a link list that's longer than my arms and I still don't have any of that.


Edited by The Imp, 10 November 2017 - 11:51 AM.

Yep, Jarno Mikkola. my Mega Mod FAQ. Use of the BWS, and how to use it(scroll down that post a bit). 
OK, desert dweller, welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand. Ouh, actually it was still snow then.. but anyways.


#57 jastey

jastey
  • Staff
  • 1842 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 12:35 PM


So, why would not that mod author, if he really is interested in making his mod bug free, check BWFixpack on his own from time to time?

Duh? Because if the mod author wasn't informed about fixes being included he might not know about it? The whole discussion started due to this insight.

 

One might almost think that the words "check" and "from time to time" was there for a reason...

To clearify what I was talking about: Be aware that there might be modders out there who don't know about BWPFixpack including fixes without talking to the mod author. It's always easy if you know it, but if you don't, expecting people to find it by themselves is a bit far stretched.

 

I'm surprised at some of the spite coming into my direction. Maybe the term courtesy was ill chosen.

 

All I was saying is that it is highly useful (and, in my opinion, in a self-explicable way) to communicate with the mod author before a patch is released. My reasons are:

 

1. The author can include the fix himself. You don't have any work with it.

2. If the fix is included into the mod, there is no fix that could be outdated when the mod gets updated. Even less work for you.

3. No bad feelings on either side - the mod author doesn't find an unauthorized patch to be the reason for a player's bug report, and the fix packer doesn't have to read complaints about his efforts.

 

Happiness all around! Why are we discussing about this?

 

And yes, I am thankful there are/were people providing fixes for my mod when I was / will be in hiatus. I am, and was, talking about communication with active modders.



#58 The Imp

The Imp

    Not good, see EVIL is better. You'll LIVE.

  • Member
  • 4794 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 12:42 PM

Jarno, you are you exaggerate things to make you point valid ...

Well, you have all the power to make it clear then. Just name the thing you do CLEAR !

And nope, the BiG World Fixpack was originally and is still the BWP's actual fixpack, or what is this then ? Is it the same as the Fixpack you use in the BWS, NO ! So I invented NOTHING... I know the reason was good when Lollorian(aka omni-axa) did it, but still not acknowledging it is BAD FOR YOU !!!! AND the entire BWS ! Just in case you failed to find this, here.

 

And nope, that's not actually a great judgement onto you, just something you should become aware off. That is all.


Edited by The Imp, 10 November 2017 - 01:45 PM.

Yep, Jarno Mikkola. my Mega Mod FAQ. Use of the BWS, and how to use it(scroll down that post a bit). 
OK, desert dweller, welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand. Ouh, actually it was still snow then.. but anyways.


#59 Mirandel

Mirandel
  • Member
  • 64 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 02:00 PM

 I'm surprised at some of the spite coming into my direction. Maybe the term courtesy was ill chosen.


There is no spite - I am absolutely 100% sure no one here means any negativity towards anyone. And I strongly suspect that if any word in your post triggered any strong feeling it was "before" as if "before releasing patch".

People tried very hard to explain why they are not so fond of the idea. I'll repeat - most of the ACTIVE modders do not rush to bug fixing. No one blames them for that but people do want to play and in many cases those bugs prevent mass installation. Waiting for the fix from a modder, adopting that fix to other mods, communicating again (because adoptation was made!) - all very, very time consuming. FOR ONE MOD. Now, multiply it by 100 or 200 (how many mods are there in BWS?)

 

 
All I was saying is that it is highly useful (and, in my opinion, in a self-explicable way) to communicate with the mod author before a patch is released. My reasons are:
 
1. The author can include the fix himself. You don't have any work with it.
2. If the fix is included into the mod, there is no fix that could be outdated when the mod gets updated. Even less work for you.
3. No bad feelings on either side - the mod author doesn't find an unauthorized patch to be the reason for a player's bug report, and the fix packer doesn't have to read complaints about his efforts.
 
Happiness all around! Why are we discussing about this?


Because you never answered to counter reason from another side?
Would not it be equally simple for the author to check if his/her mod are mentioned in the next patch? (provided there is a link to it)
No need to search different forums for bug reports, no unhappy users waiting for bug to be fixed, no need for FixPack modders to chase every authors of hundreds of mods they are keeping working together? Happiness all around!

I can only repeat your question - why are we discussing it?



#60 -me-

-me-
  • Guest

Posted 11 November 2017 - 03:19 AM

 Be aware that there might be modders out there who don't know about BWPFixpack including fixes without talking to the mod author.

If a modder has been living in a cave and is so incognizant of his surroundings that he has never heard of BWP (something that's been established for such a long time now), can you seriously expect him to provide quality support?

I would've thought an active modder is someone who actively mods and interacts with the community. Therefore, it's entirely plausible that he would 'stumble' upon BWP at some point.

When that happens, it's reasonable to presume that this active modder wonder whether there are fixes for bugs unknown to him for his mod, and come to the conclusion that perhaps he ought to check the BWP fixpack occasionally.