Results of Top Ten Niggling Bug List
Anyone remember this list? Did you think I’d forget? Well, I’m quite happy to say that the results of the list are, well, nearly perfect.
| Report No: 22481 ( RAID: 237987 ) Status: Open IDE memory leak http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=22481 | Fixed |
| Report No: 30402 ( RAID: 240470 ) Status: Open Object Inspector dropdown list takes ages to be populated on forms having a lot of objects http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=30402 | Fixed |
| Report No: 26165 ( RAID: 239430 ) Status: Open Problems using type section in method with record structure http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=26165 | Fixed |
| Report No: 24076 ( RAID: 240901 ) Status: Open Block completion doesn’t work in nested procedures/functions http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=24076 | Fixed (marked Cannot reproduce, but it appears to be fixed) |
| Report No: 27997 ( RAID: 239815 ) Status: Open | Fixed |
| Report No: 25806 ( RAID: 239391 ) Status: Open | Since this is a Delphi for .Net bug, this one is still Open. |
| Report No: 23222 ( RAID: 238245 ) Status: Open Class Completion does not create a newly created method implementation in a new line http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=23222 | This one is marked Won’t Do/Can’t Fix. The reason for that is there is no way to tell what comments go with which methods. It maybe that the comment "following" a method is actually the comment for the next method. There is no way for the parser to know where comments go. |
| Report No: 25882 ( RAID: 239222 ) Status: Open Alt key sometimes fails to activate the IDE main menu correctly http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=25882 | Fixed |
| Report No: 29215 ( RAID: 240120 ) Status: Open Type Library Editor does not save changes http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=29215 | Fixed |
| Report No: 24848 ( RAID: 238794 ) Status: Open | Fixed |
So, that’s eight fixed, one we won’t/can’t do, and one that is slated for a later release. Not bad.
Thanks to all of you that helped form the list — we worked hard to make sure that these were taken care of.
I wish to remember you that "fixed in D2007" does not mean "fixed" for all those using the release where the bug was discovered. For them it’s still "open".
April 9th, 2007 at 2:52 pmThe problem is the ones designing QC did not understand that. For each bug it should report which versions are affected, which aren’t, and for each affected version if it is fixed or not - and when.
A *professional* "defect tracking" system should work that way.
But keep on selling expensive bug fixes, especially for bugs that should have never find their way into production, you’re just teasing your users.
Luigi -> Unfortunately, the point you are making is one of my long standing complaints about Delphi. Bug fixes are too often issued in the form of a new version release.
Historically, if it isn’t fixed in the first 3 months, it won’t be until the next release. Technically, D2005 broke that pattern when Alan Bauer released a set of unofficial fixes. Unfortunately, they remained unofficial until D2006.
D2006 had a longer fix window thanks, mainly I suspect, to the Turbo Delphi release.
Now that D2007 is out, chances are that you will not see another 2006 or Turbo update. Thanks to RTL compatibility, You might be able to back port future 2007 updates if you already HAVE 2007, but then why would you want to use 2006?
Personally, I would like to see CodeGear provide support for the current version and at least 1 prior version.
That said, if you are on the fence about getting 2007 -> As a long time malcontent using D7, I can recommend 2007, it finally works (those few minor glitches I have found aren’t show stoppers and everything works pretty snappy).
I would uninstall 2006 first if you have it tho, as the non-breaking changes broke my system thanks to the Teechart version changes. Lesson hard learned there.
April 9th, 2007 at 3:48 pmIt’s not clear how your explanation of #23222 applies, and the link is broken ("Either there is no report #23222, or you are not authorized to see that report.") What do comments have to do with putting a new method implementation on its own line?
April 9th, 2007 at 5:10 pmYa, something kinda weird going on with QC.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:28 pm23222’s "Won’t do" is very bad.
Ofcourse you know what method the comment belongs to. I have never seen anyone comment on the next method in a line on the previous method. Tell me where you have…
So the common should be to treat it as a comment of that method. A comment on the next line should be treated as the next methods comments.
You just take the common usage, and assume that in this way it should be instead of having the code completion assume the least common usage because that means you don’t have to do any changes… I find this "Won’t do" very bad. It looks like person looking at it just tried to find some excuse not to fix it. But face it, there is no good excuse here.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:37 amNick:
I’m sure a new list can be compiled quickly.
Nicely done. Now ask us again
Atle Smelvaer:
If you mean that the method is listed first and the comment thereafter - yeah, I’ve seen that. Lots. Some guys prefer to list the method declaration and follow it up with the comments. I agree this does seem to be counter-intuitive, but there is one benefit: you see the parameters and then read the explanation. Otherwise you always find yourself looking at the declaration while reading the comment.
C Johnson:
April 10th, 2007 at 2:32 amI seldom agree with your rants, but I think you are spot-on with this one:
"Personally, I would like to see CodeGear provide support for the current version and at least 1 prior version."
With reference to 23222, I find this some what annoying because of my style of coding/commenting, luckily I have a code browser that points out where the comments don’t match the code.
However would it not be easy to provide a simple configuration (Boolean) value to define whether the comments are above or below a method. I understand that would require a new option in the options dialogue but you could make it a registry only fix temporarily until the options dialogue could be updated.
regards
April 10th, 2007 at 4:36 amDave.
Atle Smelvaer -> I’ve seen it. In fact, if you visit worsethanfailure.com (previously thedailywtf.com), you’ll learn that nothing is too strange, counterproductive or outright stupid to end up in production code.
In fact, I have considered writing a code beautifier several times, and I even have a multi-language code parser written (rewritten in fact. I needed one to help find problems in a fellow programmer’s code with mismatched begin/ends across THOUSANDS of lines code in a single procedure, with absolutely random indentation levels) - my problem always stops when I try to figure out how to associate comments properly.
Comments can be before or after a procedure (litterally an after thought comment), they can be before a line, after a line, in a line, heck, they can even be a block that only really attaches to the FIRST line of the block, with the rest "floating" below to keep it on screen.
I would already have code to at least alphabetize my methods, standardize case and line things up to my preference if I could just stop carring about the comments.
Sadly I have yet to think about a method that I am satisfied with.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:29 amThe problem is to know what is the point to NOT put the newly created code (by codecompletion) in a new line !!!. Until D7 it worked perfectly.. it was broken since D2005.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:01 pmI just received my new version of Delphi 2007. I’m just sad that I had to endure a broken product (D2006) for more than a year without having it fixed and to add to the insult, be force to pay for fixing it (D2007).
I lost a lot of productive time closing Delphi 2006 because it was so unstable. Ctrl + Alt + Deleta was my best friend. I also had to keep a link to the help file of D7 because the one in Delphi 2006 was not even close to a working product.
If Codegear was respecting their client, they should have fix Delphi 2006 before releasing Delphi 2007. In short I think Delphi 2007 should have been the fix for Delphi 2006.
It’s like going to a car dealer and buy a lemon and then, after a year of complaining about the problem I experience with my car, the dealer was telling me: “You know you are right, we made a mistake and we sold you a lemon… but the new 2007 model is all fix now… just buy it and everything will work has advertise…”
Your home page says: Where developers matter. Really… I don’t think so…
The positive thing about this is that Delphi 2007 is a solid product, the negative one is that it should have been called Delphi 2006 SP1.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:31 pmStill many important issues in D2007, so I hope there will be an update soon. Especially for the forms behaviour with the new vista adjustments active.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:52 pmhey I managed to get my pet annoyance fixed
April 11th, 2007 at 7:51 pmRe: 23222
This is annoying, we comment our method ends so we can match quickly ie
Procedure Foo
Begin
End; { Foo }
And this bug is so annoying because code completion turns it into:
Procedure Foo
Begin
End; procedure compilermethod
begin
end;
{ For }
Surely you could at least leave the comments on the same line of the previous method alone?
April 12th, 2007 at 10:43 pm