|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Unfortunately, the session problems have not been fixed. The code is still failing to sort sessions properly on the summary tab and double-listing games on the sessions tab. Were the problems entered into a bug database and assigned to an engineer? They should have been relatively easy to fix.
As far as development process, it sounds like things are moving in the right direction over the current situation where bugs in core functionality remain unfixed for months (still). The more responsive and agile Paizo can be in its development process, the better it will be for all concerned when any problems arise.
In terms of reliably anticipating bugs, from experience, that can be difficult. The best way to have a solid product and reproducible development process is to: code defensively, have engineers unit test their changes before handing off to QA, have a good product/change spec (including human factors input), prototypes where needed, an accurate test plan (based on the product/change spec, UX, etc.), a well-maintained bug database, assiduous QA and a back-end infrastructure that supports regression testing, including DB clones for each context (as needed). And finally, have a good beta test program (possible with a well-designed back-end server architecture) and ensure that you have tracked and regressed all reported bugs (and rolled in anything from beta).
Good luck with the next set of changes!