Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Looks like somebody forgot about that pesky international dateline, or something.
|
You ever try to test a Suite of Software that has over 300,000 lines of code? Just performing an Analysis of the the Test Strategy and Test Plan and examining the Test Cases to ensure that adequate Test Coverage has been ensured is daunting.
The Avionics Software has been re-written several times because of long Raptor's Long Acquisition Time has led to obsolescence resulting in the necessity for Code Redesigns.
|
As a matter of fact I have done some programming, nothing like that though. I thought the raptor had over a million lines of code. I am quite familiar with aircraft software failures though, I have worked the C-17 (I'm an avionics tech), or as I like to call it "100 computers flying in close formation". |
Then you know that job function of programming is a lot different than that of a Software Quality Assurance Engineer or QA Analyst.
The interplay between a QA department and the SW Engineering Department is pretty close. The Software will have many Rev's within each Release. As Software goes through the test cycle it will go through Unit and Integration Testing, Functionality Testing, Compatilibility Testing, Parameter Testing, Load and Stress Testing, etc. Each Rev can undergo Full Bug Regression Testing.
Make a change to the code, or sometimes fix a bug and a new bug(s) is introduced. Sometimes a Bug that was previously fixed is open again because another fix involved a change in the logic of the code.
In the Raptor's case, maybe the Dateline bug was detected and fixed, but then was reopened due to additional changes in the software or a mistake in the configuration control of the code. And maybe some of the closed bugs were overlooked due to management pressure upon the Test Department for signoff.
The failure to root out software bugs could have many causes. It could be due to some shoddy SQA work. It could be due to bad CM. It could be due to Management wanting to make a deadline or contracturual term. It could be due to a lack of courage in the QA department standing its ground over bugs. It could even be due to malicious intent
such as a Manager outside of the QA department having access to a Bugbase and intentionally closing open bugs. And then turning around and deceiving Government Auditors.
ETA: as a sidenote. Here is a collection of Software Bugs:
wwwzenger.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/persons/huckle/bugse.html#torpedo