Contact handles disappearing mysteriously from the whois database!
pceasy at norfolk.infi.net
Thu Apr 29 00:42:37 UTC 1999
At 04:44 PM 4/27/99 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I find it rather curious that QA procedures were not in place to prevent
>> the bug from happening in the first place.
>to paraphrase dijkstra because i am too lazy to look up the reference,
>testing can demonstrate the presence of bugs, it can not demonstrate their
>i.e. if they could do what you suggest, there would be very few new bugs in
>the world. this would be a truly great advance.
So what's the problem in *testing* your software before putting in general
release? Running the "upgraded" software on a testbed machine before
putting it on-line? Dropping contact information is kinda noticable...it's
not like this is some obscure, only-happens-on-wierd-configurations,
blue-moon bug; this is pretty obvious.
Hell, even *I* test a new part in a computer before closing the case and
pronouncing it fit for use...you'd think NSI could do the same. It's basic
common sense, after all.
>> I also find it curious that there are no rollback procedures in place to
>> recover quickly from a bug in generating whois data.
>good point. a possible explanation is that they changed the back end, and
>hence the front end. while one might roll back the front end, the back end
>could be much more difficult as
> o new updates had flowed in, i.e. can't just roll back, need to convert
> the data back, and
> o when people write database conversion code, they tend to think of it
> as one way, and do not double the cost by writing un-conversion code.
Or maybe testing their code? Or would that have been more expensive than
writing a patch?
>in private email, an acquaintance suggested that extensive alpha and beta
>testing might have caught it. with a product such as whois this might be
>hard. i.e. alpha/beta tests are usually done by shipping product to a
>select few. how would one do this with whois? with registration services?
>etc.? not saying one could not, just that this is far from trivial or
Hmmm...how about using a partial database to test the revision before
deploying it? Say, just a random sampling to make sure everything works
the way it should before you step on your privates in front of a few
million people. That's certainly what I would have done! It's pretty
obvious and yes, even trivial...one machine (or two, if you want to verify
>randy, who spent 20+ years in software development
And never learned to test before deployment? I learned that in high school
"Let there be light!"...and God invented Thomas Edison.
(757) 495-EASY 
On-site computer repair, upgrades and consultations
Lead SimOps columnist/reviewer on http://WWW.TheGamers.Net
More information about the NANOG