I find the excuse that the bug is just for your small “edge case” as an explanation for why it won’t be fixed annoying.
I have found “edge cases” to actually mean we don’t want to fix it. Often the issue isn’t needing some special code to deal with an “edge case” it is the coding was done poorly and breaks in many different “edge cases.” It isn’t that those edge cases need to be coded for. It is that the code should have been written in a robust way that didn’t break for lots of “edge cases” but the excuse given for not fixing the fundamental coding fragility is the bugs found are just “edge cases.”
There are real instances where “edge cases” is a justifiable excuse. For example, adding in special code to deal with some odd category of users that just isn’t worth the cost.
But I just am so tired of fragile coding being excused as if breaking in lots of “edge cases” is perfectly acceptable when the only reason it fails is because the code is fragile instead of being built in a robust way to begin with. The issue isn’t that you have some special edge case that you want special coding for the issue is the code was written in an unnecessarily fragile way that makes it not work unless you follow a list of acceptable use cases.
Related: W. Edwards Deming and Software Development – Software Supporting Processes Not the Other Way Around –Complicating Simplicity – Which Prime Minister Said “The last programme I wrote was a Sudoku solver in C++”?
Pingback: Functional Websites are Normally Far Superior to Apps » Curious Cat Management Blog
Pingback: Don’t Assume All Web Users Have a Fiber-like Connection | Coding and Server Syntax Examples
Pingback: Add Constraints to Processes Carefully | Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog
Pingback: The Best Form of Fire Fighting is None at All | Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog