Sending crash reports to LiveCode?

Peter W A Wood peterwawood at gmail.com
Sat Apr 25 09:37:39 EDT 2015


Mark 

Thanks for taking the time to respond. particularly at the weekend.

I fully understand that the team doesn’t have time to spend “looking for needles in haystack”. My frustration comes from the perception that nobody has even looked at the crash report. (A perception created by the response to the bug report). If somebody had taken a couple of minutes at most to scan the crash report and then said “We took a quick look at the crash report but it didn’t give any real clue as to the cause of the crash.” followed by the understandable request to see if it can be reproduced. My perception would have been much different.

Kind regards

Peter

PS I will continue to submit crash reports.


> On 25 Apr 2015, at 19:59, Mark Waddingham <mark at livecode.com> wrote:
> 
> By the way - please don't be discouraged from submitting crash reports even if you can't reproduce them.
> 
> The more reports we get with the same stack trace (or a similar one) the more information we have and thus the more likely we are to be able find the cause. (Particularly if the same trace occurs from an apparantly different set of circumstances).
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 25 Apr 2015, at 12:49, Mark Waddingham <mark at livecode.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Yes - a crash report indicates the presence of a bug, however as such a report only contains a stack trace they generally do not contain enough information to diagnose the cause and thus fix the issue.
>> 
>> Context is always important when fixing bugs - particularly crashes as they can occur in a place in the code completely divorced from the actual cause.
>> 
>> Reproducibility is the key thing that helps us fix bugs quickly - without reproduceable test cases you are basically left with searching for a needle in a haystack which is rarely a useful use of time.
>> 
>> Our general view is that our time is better spent fixing reproduceable faults especially as in many cases non-reproduceable faults are a side-effect of one or more reproduceable ones (this is particular true of intermittant crashes).
>> 
>> The report won't be closed as not a bug if you or we can't reproduce it, just closed as cannot reproduce. Note that any information to do with the sequence of steps you performed before you get a crash is useful to help us attempt to reproduce issues such as this - sometimes the smallest details can contain the key piece of information.
>> 
>> Mark.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 25 Apr 2015, at 09:37, Peter W A Wood <peterwawood at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I was using LiveCode 8.0 with an unsaved stack on OS X when it crashed. I dutifully saved the crash log, completed a bug report and attached the crash log.
>>> 
>>> What I got back from LiveCode was a "form letter” that they couldn’t reproduce the crash and can I reproduce the crash and send any stack that demonstrates the issue. As a result this hasn’t been accepted as a bug.
>>> 
>>> Why do they need to reproduce the crash before accepting that there is a bug? Isn't the Apple crash report which shows that LiveCode crashed enough evidence of a bug? 
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode





More information about the use-livecode mailing list