I meant that getting a new tech up to speed on an existing system (with handover from the previous responsible person) is something that happens a lot. Whether that's "managed" or not, the handover still occurs. As it happens, because there is no other IT-literate person in the client company (which is often the case with my clients) I'm not only "doing" the handover, I'm also "managing" it.
Has anyone some experience when it comes to change & release management and legal, compliance or audit requirements (country dependent)?
Can you share some of your legal (country dependent), compliance or audit requirements?
We already have a very basic directive from legal and compliance to follow but I am curious what other people do or don’t do.
By the way my goal is to have the leanest/simplest change & release process one can think of but still have an audit trail. Like create an issue tracking item (request of change) with required fields, status, workflow and linked work orders including linked stories. I already have it all planned out but I would like your input for comparison/improvements.
Discussion examples: what to do when the location of the data changes, shall we have sign-offs or not, do we need work orders, do we need linked stories, which fields are important/required etc.
In the process of practicing agile, the team will have multiple choices: Scrum, XP(Extreme Programming), Kanban, Crystal, Lean, SAFe, etc. The most popular agile development method is Scrum. Therefore, some stereotype it as that agile is Scrum, and implementing Agile is to practice the Scrum method.
Improving products has gradually become the glue that keeps the development team and the operation and maintenance team together. In this case, people are often tied to a dilemma: for team agile transition, Scrum or DevOps?
My thought is that far too much time is spent agonizing over process methodologies. The primary focus should be on creating a culture of design and implementation excellence. Things like code reviews, code ownership, automated testing, and refactoring will do far more to achieve excellence than any process.
Actually, these two are not competitors to each other they are complementary to each other for developing any software do is better we look for their working properly while the process is going on rather than comparing them.
As asked and within the context of what is provided that question doesn't really make sense. Those Process Control methodologies are intended to cover two different areas of work within the totality of what is needed for a business. So you would not pick one but both.
I am not sure what is the right forum to publish this in (here or in the C++ forum)
But I coudln't find any information about it too, which is odd.
Anyway, Unit testing in C++:
Since it is not as popular as unit testing in other high level languages, I need your recommendations and insights.
I have a lot of legacy code- I was just given a project to which I have to have covered by at least 70% unit tests.
I need to do a lot of refactoring. Different tools (mocking tools) offer different things and has different limitations. So it might be smarter to ask the people who have already done this and know better than I do - what do you use?
Is there a mocking tool (along with a supported testing framework) that can mock concrete classes, virtual, static and non static method, private methods, etc?
I recall being in the same situation 2 years ago.I had a lot of legacy code in my project and I had write unit tests for it.
I have spent hours on researching and trying different tools for the task I was given, and it was not easy to find mocking tools
that could satisfy my needs when it comes to different limitations I had which are similar to the ones you mentioned.
I have tried different ones but then found GMock and later on FakeIT, both did quite a good job but couldn't help me with
concret&static classes, private/static/virtual methods and I had to do a lot of refactoring in my code.
Researching a little more and I found Isolator ++ (which is actually free now, I had to pay back then), which amazingly took care of such cases
and saved me a lot of time...so you know where my recommendation goes to :slightly_smiling_face:
I guess I'm a bit late for the party. But I still think it's a useful reminder that if you want to check your application for correctness you may employ other tests as well. I.e. end-to-end tests. Might be easier to get a legacy system under test with them
It is a very blurred line between an expiry date that ask you to "overhaul" the software and a nag screen that demands that you update the system. Both may allow you to continue to work but achieve the same thing and are bloody annoying.
I suspect the OP has run across an early version of an updater attempt.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
If your are writing it as a Software as a Service type application then yes. Its no difference than say Office 360 which is a subscription every year you have to pay for it again. If however you are just writing a widget app it either needs to be a you pay for it its yours. Now its fair to link that install to a machine where that license can ONLY run on one machine (or one at a time)
As the other user commented, legal/licensing requirement could mandate this.
Additionally over the course of time a few of the components/libraries that are used by the program might have gone through deprecation. Hence the software could do a Update Check but blocking it from using is simply unacceptable unless the first clause on licensing applies.