Postpone Netplay Development

[davidachamberlain]

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Well, what's insane is the fact that there is only one developer having to take on all the bugs. There is no easy solution, and to be honest, I believe we will see that netplay has suffered from the fixing of solitair bugs. It's possible that we'll end up in an indefinite loop if we are not careful. At some point, someone should say that it's time to fix bugs in an area, whether or not they are only solitair or netplay. Fixes should be tested against all modes of play to see if the fix is complete for all modes of play.
The one debug tool that is really missing here, is one in which one could change a solitair game into a netplay or hot seat game so that we could test fixes in all modes of play. That would speed things up a lot, I believe...

There are some advantages to only having one person assigned. Only one person is modifying the code, avoiding someone else changing something you are working on; there is only one version being managed by one person which sometimes results in replacing completed work with incomplete work.

There might be value in separate testers (which we kind of have with the beta testers) or someone to take on the prioritization to take some work off Steve.

As much as I also would like to see things go faster, at this stage, this is probably the most effective way to get things done. Communication takes time and the more people you have involved, the more time and effort it will take.

It is certainly possible (as happens today) to have 2 machines both connected to Netplay to test those.

I think part of the problem is that we have got beyond white box testing to black box testing where we are relying more on the games to test rather than enumerating all of the different combinations of activities to verify that everything works. I know that Steve tries to do that in his own testing, but it is going to be pretty limited.

One of the processes in modern development and testing is using an automated tool harness that automatically retests every change against the requirements and specifications. Steve's development tools are a little antiquated for those tools, so he needs to work with what he has.

Dave

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Well, what's insane is the fact that there is only one developer having to take on all the bugs. There is no easy solution, and to be honest, I believe we will see that netplay has suffered from the fixing of solitair bugs. It's possible that we'll end up in an indefinite loop if we are not careful. At some point, someone should say that it's time to fix bugs in an area, whether or not they are only solitair or netplay. Fixes should be tested against all modes of play to see if the fix is complete for all modes of play.
The one debug tool that is really missing here, is one in which one could change a solitair game into a netplay or hot seat game so that we could test fixes in all modes of play. That would speed things up a lot, I believe...

There are some advantages to only having one person assigned. Only one person is modifying the code, avoiding someone else changing something you are working on; there is only one version being managed by one person which sometimes results in replacing completed work with incomplete work.

There might be value in separate testers (which we kind of have with the beta testers) or someone to take on the prioritization to take some work off Steve.

As much as I also would like to see things go faster, at this stage, this is probably the most effective way to get things done. Communication takes time and the more people you have involved, the more time and effort it will take.

It is certainly possible (as happens today) to have 2 machines both connected to Netplay to test those.

I think part of the problem is that we have got beyond white box testing to black box testing where we are relying more on the games to test rather than enumerating all of the different combinations of activities to verify that everything works. I know that Steve tries to do that in his own testing, but it is going to be pretty limited.

One of the processes in modern development and testing is using an automated tool harness that automatically retests every change against the requirements and specifications. Steve's development tools are a little antiquated for those tools, so he needs to work with what he has.

Dave

All true. But the main problem is that you can't change a solitair game into a netplay one or vice versa. This means that if there is a bug in a certain situation in solitair, you can't test the bug fix in the exact situation in netplay or vice versa.

[davidachamberlain]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

All true. But the main problem is that you can't change a solitair game into a netplay one or vice versa. This means that if there is a bug in a certain situation in solitair, you can't test the bug fix in the exact situation in netplay or vice versa.

[/quote]

Not entirely true.

You can edit the file with Wordpad (or other text editors).

Netplay (first 2 lines of file)

2.4.3,10,2
player1,player2,

Solitaire (first 2 lines of file)

2.4.3,10,0
player1,

The last number is what determines Netplay (2) or Solitaire (0).

Obviously, the name(s) needs to be updated

I have needed to that work around to get past problems with Production.

You take the file, update the number and name(s), save, restore, and re-save with WIF before continuing.

This is not a great solution and might have some side effects, but we have just used this to get by a glitch from Return to Base to Final Production Planning and then continue as Netplay.

I don't see why it could not be used for regression testing with the other mode.

Dave

[paulderynck]

That may only work for production because it's one of the few phases in NetPlay where the players can independently do things. Usually there is a constant stream of game records flowing back and forth and without those, the two game files will go out of sync.

[davidachamberlain]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

That may only work for production because it's one of the few phases in NetPlay where the players can independently do things. Usually there is a constant stream of game records flowing back and forth and without those, the two game files will go out of sync.

I am not really sure about the limitations and would not be surprised if it broke something as it really depends on what differences there might be in the data - especially how it is formatted for each type of game. So far, I believe that the data format is the same.

I am not all that worried about the synchronization as the files should mostly be the same. The serial nature of the game should mostly result in actions taken by one player to be passed to the other player to keep the game in sync. When they get out of sync, that is usuall a problem, as is the case the production, and even has been the case with dealing with Undo. I have needed to have my opponent save a copy of their version and restore that as my own to get them back in sync.

I think, however, that it might work for regression testing from one to the other.

Dave

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


- It is time for another "state of the game" post and I apologize for keeping you waiting. Steve and I are in regular communication, but we were hopeful that we'd be able to get to a stable netplay release before now and were continuing the cycle of testing and iterating with the expectation that we were closer to a stable release than it turned out.

Yes it is. But that was over a month ago and you haven't been heard from or seen since. Erik, if you were a customer instead of an employee, what would your reaction to that be?

And another month.

[joshuamnave]

And two more months.

Gee you guys really don't have a very high opinion of your customers at all.

[Sir Roland]

When will this game get a version update that is not a beta test update?

[davidachamberlain]

ORIGINAL: Sir Roland

When will this game get a version update that is not a beta test update?

It was supposed to be a couple months ago, but more work was required to deal with defects identified during testing.

My best guess is that it is still a couple more months out - probably before the end of the year, but not much before.

Dave

[Sir Roland]

1 week later. Still looking for a matrix reply.

What's the ETA for an "Official Update"?

[Numdydar]

There are monthly reports that Steve posts around the 1st of each month that are 'official'. I find those far more useful to know what is going on versus anything Eric and/or Matrix says. Since this information is coming directly from the person doing the work [:)]

Steve is the lead (and only) programmer on the project in case you were not aware. He is helped by a number of Beta testers to get things done. There is no one at Matrix helping code the game (or anywhere else). Which is why the monthly reports should matter as official status of the game.

[davidachamberlain]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

There are monthly reports that Steve posts around the 1st of each month that are 'official'. I find those far more useful to know what is going on versus anything Eric and/or Matrix says. Since this information is coming directly from the person doing the work [:)]

Steve is the lead (and only) programmer on the project in case you were not aware. He is helped by a number of Beta testers to get things done. There is no one at Matrix helping code the game (or anywhere else). Which is why the monthly reports should matter as official status of the game.

I think what he was asking about was a non-Beta version (an official updated version). Steve was planning that before the summer, but there has not yet been enough stability to release that version.

It will come, but I would rather have it arrive later than just be another open Beta being called an official version.

I find the Beta's are good enough to use and better than the last "official" version.

Dave

[Erik Rutins]

Steve has been doing many iterations. We're much closer than we were earlier in the Summer, perhaps very close but there are a few more issues to investigate before we can feel comfortable making it official. We'll see how beta testing goes over the next week or two. The update on the state of the game will follow once that official update is released. That has been our only focus over the summer.

[Sir Roland]

Erik, Thank you! We have something to look forward to.
An official public update looks to be on the horizon.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

There are monthly reports that Steve posts around the 1st of each month that are 'official'. I find those far more useful to know what is going on versus anything Eric and/or Matrix says. Since this information is coming directly from the person doing the work [:)]

Steve is the lead (and only) programmer on the project in case you were not aware. He is helped by a number of Beta testers to get things done. There is no one at Matrix helping code the game (or anywhere else). Which is why the monthly reports should matter as official status of the game.

I think what he was asking about was a non-Beta version (an official updated version). Steve was planning that before the summer, but there has not yet been enough stability to release that version.

It will come, but I would rather have it arrive later than just be another open Beta being called an official version.

I find the Beta's are good enough to use and better than the last "official" version.

Dave

Ah.

Like you I find using the betas the best way to play. So I don't really care when 'official' releases are scheduled/made. I totally missed that they were looking for an official release.

With all the Early Access games running around these days (some of them amazingly good) you would think official releases of anything would not matter as much.

[davidachamberlain]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Ah.

Like you I find using the betas the best way to play. So I don't really care when 'official' releases are scheduled/made. I totally missed that they were looking for an official release.

With all the Early Access games running around these days (some of them amazingly good) you would think official releases of anything would not matter as much.

Normally, I make a point of avoiding beta releases unless I have signed up to do the testing. That is normally more of a regression test than a full featured use and the goal is simply to find bugs and verify they are resolved. However, if I did that in this case, I would still be using a version from more than 2 years ago.

For now, things will just need to continue that way until it finally gets to the point where it is entirely stable and moving on to the enhancements again. As much as I would like to see more of the optional rules and other scenarios along with Netplay supported by 4 or more, I am just glad to see that defects are getting fixed.

Dave

[paulderynck]

The original idea was that if a beta was solid enough - it would be the next public release. i.e. if you DL'd the public release you'd get that beta. And then the next set of fixes/improvements/etc would be the next beta.

Rinse and repeat. Believe me you are not ever going to get a public update release fresh out of the box. And you should be happy about that because all you would be getting is a chance to test the next beta without it being called a beta.

Get it?