Low quality of the Quality Central & Co. or too pretending customer?

Hi to everybody,
Actually I'm quite disappointed with Embarcadero's services. Meaning the answers/feedback I'm getting by QC operators and R&D team. It seems to me there is nobody that works as supervisor because my impression is they are free to answer you whatever without some kind of manager that controls if the feedback is the proper one, if it is correct or not, if they were kindly with the user and so on. Well telling it shortly it seems to me there is no concept of QoS and customer care. It happened to me an R&D gu
y gave me a technically false feedback and nobody checked it up. As well as when I sent back an example that invalidates the wrong answer I just got another "reason" to "Won't Do" or "In a future release" (There are QC opened since more than 18 months) and so on.

I wanted to share with the community some of my own experiences with them in order to understand if I am right or maybe I'm wrong and it is my fault I'm pretending too from them.

I worked also as incidence resolution manager, so my experience is when you give such kind of service to the users there are some SLAs (Service Level Agreement) and some basic rules to respect in order to guarantee customer satisfaction that should be one of the main goals. Letting apart the SLAs that could change depending on the service and the provider, I want to focus on those basic rules, because those are the one I considered till now QC operators should provide to Embarcadero's customers/users as c
ommon in a to end user service:
- Be kindly with the user.
- Read all the content of the user reports carefully. 
- Don't be hasty judging what is the report meaning/goal.
- Do not stick with grammar or technical terms. A report with some mistake could have a valuable meaning anyway.
- Communication from and to the user is fundamental.
- Every report status or data change must have an explanation comment. Meaning a report cannot be rejected or lowered in priority or edited without an explanation of why. This is valid for both the operator and the user.
- Documentation against technical. If there is a product official documentation that is the Bible. Whatever is wrote there and also what is not wrote there (meaning the lack of some kind of limitation) has priority against any technical reason.
- Logic against technical. If a feature works in a certain way due to technical reasons but it would be logically better it works in another way, maybe it's the case to update the feature design and implementation.
- If a user ask for feedback do not let him/her waiting centuries for getting an answer and not answering is not an option at all.
- If a user is not satisfied with the received feedback, spend the required time for giving him/her more feedback for making him/her satisfied or at least understand why you came to a different conclusion.
- Be ready to change your mind about a resolution when the user provide good reasons for it.

To these common rules I would just like to add one personal point of view. Being a QUALITY central I'd believe the operators should be quite focused improving overall product quality and achieve user expectations more than every current technical limitation.

I want to add also a not about documentation. The important of documentation is not only what it states but also what it does NOT state. Meaning if for example the official documentation tells me I can use Generics exactly as whatever other type, if something related to a base type normally works and using generics fails by my point of view it's a bug. Because if Generics have such kind of limitation it should be clearly stated by the documentation, if not they are telling (selling) me a feature is presen
t and it is not. I personally don't mind if the compiler has the problem whatever with it. As customer, if I bought your product and you give me an official documentation of how that works, it has to work as you telling me (in the bad and in the good). Whatever doesn't follow this rule it's a bug, so there are 2 options: Fixing the bug or removing the feature from the feature list (or explicitly state its limitation). 

Now that I have listed what I consider normal in a quality service, before going ahead with some QC reports example that really frustrated me for the received feedback and/or resolution, I want to add I'm not a saint too. Meaning, sometimes (and later on more and more) I wasn't kindly with them too. Being unfriendly is never good but I want to half justify myself about this. We logged quite a lot of QC reports and it costed hours of works to me and to my team members find issues, isolate them, create simp
le short test applications and write all the required description texts to log into the QC reports. So when I get a report closed as "Test Case Error" without neither a single line of feedback it seems to me a deep lack of respect of our work and so I get quite nervous.

Ok now let's go ahead with some QC reports example and at the end even the copy of a private e-mail I received by a QC operator that it seems needed so badly to insult me to having to write me in such a way.

QC#113531 
- The operator changed report type without any explanation on why that
- I do not think if something always worked and only when Generics are involved it fails it has to be considered a new feature request. for me it's still a bug. 
- Answers as "The type was changed from B to F in our internal tracking system. It is not a bug." do not look like exactly customer care. It really sounds like "we decided so and so shut up"
- The following answer is even worst. Essentially the operator answers I could argue it is implicit by the documentation because it is not said anyway there is such kind of limitation with generics but (in his opinion) because the documentation doesn't neither explicitly state that common feature works with generic my arguing is not valid. (!!!). And not talking about the following "Because the developers/QA have decided so." if there was still some other doubt that the meaning was "we decided so and so s
hut up" now is gone.
- About this issue I want to add there is something else wrong. If someone checks the date and time I was writing asking for feedback and when I receive it there is some temporal issue. I was asking it till 25/03/2013 each 2 days and looking the logs it seems I received the answer on the same date 15/03/2013 I asked it. It wasn't so, in fact I answer the supposed received feedback the 26/03/2013. Letting a part following the operators point of view I'm so dumb that every 2 days, watching the report I wasn
't able to see there was some answer by them and I spent time asking for feedback... quite insulting. Anyway there is something dirty because it happened to me with multiple reports. I also opened a report (114214) about this QC Windows Client issue and it is still there as reported, because I guess it is a QC client problem. Because the other options would be thinking the operators having free DB access change their answer date/time just for invalidating you're blaming them for not answering, but that wo
uld be over-dirty so I don't want to think such a thing.

QC#113543
- The documentation about the feature is quite clear but my report was changed from "B" (Basic functionality failure) to "D" (Documentation problem) without one single line of comment or resolution description by the operator.
- In addition I cannot get the main point anyway. So if there is a lack of declared functionality is a documentation problem?
- I asked why it was changed from "B" to "D" and waited for feedback for 20 days.
- At the end, tired to wait I restored the "B" by myself.

QC#113554
- I admit I lose the calm writing "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?" but another report closed without neither a line of comment or resolution description.
- And the operator answers me "I agree with the resolution"... which one?

QC#113555
- Letting be the technical argue in itself and that the environment already got "hot" but the operator that writes you "Also, stop attaching useless .doc files. Are the Description and Steps fields not large enough for you?"... So this is how operators consider our efforts trying to generate material about a report... useless doc files... cool.

QC#113558
- I asked for feedback on 14/03/2013, today is 12/04/2013 oh well it is almost one month and still no one single line of reply by the operators.
- An update tool that as only scope has checking for updates, when there are available updates it doesn't detect it and just terminates and the operator closes the defect as "As designed"??? Sorry but this really seems absurd to me. So, if not for updating the product, for what is designed the update tool???

QC#113795
- Also if remarked as critical, again closed and without any comment or resolution description. 

QC#114225
- Again the documentation doesn't state such limitation.
- Anyway, if the compiler allows to use "Array of Whatever" as defined type for a generic and later on fails to use whatever kind of array as input parameter telling "incompatible types" there is a bug. 
- If the problem is "Array of Whatever" cannot be used as generic replacement the documentation should state it and the compiler should generate an error like "Array of Whatever cannot be used as Generics final type" not talking about parameters that makes the developer crazy looking for which kind of array he/she has to do for making it compatible with the Generics call, only for discovering no type fits with it.

I would have quite a lot more QC where operators invite me to "shut up" more or less indirectly and/or politely or they tell me before post more reports I'd need "Delphi schooling" but I think I already gave the idea of how the QC reports are followed, the kind of attention to improving product quality and the kind of feedback the user receives (when he/she receives something).

Quite stunning, one of them, not satisfied of arguing with me in the QC because he cannot openly and directly insult me decided the right option was taking my personal e-mail and start to write me there by his personal account. Cleaver guy, not traceable in EMBT. So with such channel he was able to insult me freely. I'm not interested neither in publish all our conversations (sometimes I'm stubborn and stupid too because I shouldn't had to think maybe some kind of constructive conversation would come out 
at the end) neither in telling who is. I'll just say trying to fix some job issue and receiving private e-mail with "arshole", "idiot" and so on it's not something I would call a quality service. For who is asking himself, of course after some tries I started to be not so gently with him too.

CONCLUDING
Thanks to who had the patience to read such large message. If you did it, I would be very glad to read some feedback about it and essentially what other user things about if it is me pretending too much by QC operators & co. or they should provide quite an higher quality of service and more professional and kindly behave.

Best regards,
Bruno Fratini
0
Bruno
4/12/2013 12:32:49 PM
embarcadero.dev.qualitycentral 255 articles. 0 followers. Follow

12 Replies
549 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 19

Bruno Fratini <> wrote:

>I'm quite disappointed with the answers/feedback I'm getting by QC

Perhaps you are expecting QC to be something which it is not.

QC is intended only as a bug reporting facility, not a way of getting
answers or solutions to problems. If you want help from Embarcadero,
then, basically, you have to pay for it. If you want help from fellow
users, then post your problems in one of the technical newsgroups.
There you may even be able to get help from someone at Embarcadero, as
some of the techies there do participate in the newsgroups when they
have time to spare.

QC does offer some indirect help in that it provides a place for
posting workarounds for bugs, but if you post a report in the hopes
that someone will promptly post a workaround you are likely to be
disappointed. Better to do a search and find out if someone else has
posted the same bug and already had a workaround added.

Many QC sysops are unpaid volunteers from the user community and they
are not trained beyond being pointed to a set of written guidelines.
Most do go through an initial period of oversight by the sysop who
invited into the fold and may get feedback on their performance -
especially if they take the initiative to ask questions.

In general, the feedback they are expected to give is simply to
indicate any deficiencies in you report which would prevent it from
being opened.

Internally, Embarcadero uses a separate bug tracking system which is
partially fed by QC reports that have been opened. But comments and
information entered on the internal reports does not often get copied
into QC. So you should basically consider QC to be a one-way street,
not a way to get feedback from Embarcadero.

I'm not saying that this is particularly a good thing, just that this
is the way it is, and seems to be the way it was intentionally
designed. If you want help or feedback, don't expect to get it from
QC.

 - Leo
0
Leo
4/12/2013 4:59:46 PM
Bruno Fratini wrote:

> QC#113531 
> - The operator changed report type without any explanation on why that

It has been explained; more than once. That you're unwilling to accept
the answer given doesn't make it untrue. It is currently not a feature,
and not a bug, therefore your request is an enhancement.

> QC#113543
> - The documentation about the feature is quite clear but my report
was > changed from "B" (Basic functionality failure) to "D"
(Documentation
> problem) without one single line of comment or resolution description
by the operator.

Probably because it didn't need any further explanation. The
functionality doesn't exist for record helpers; the documentation
should reflect this.

> - In addition I cannot get the main point anyway. So if there is a
lack of declared functionality is a documentation problem?

When the documentation infers functionality that intentionally hasn't
been implemented, yes.

> QC#113554, 113555

Same as for QC#113531: that you're unwilling to accept the explanations
doesn't make them untrue.

> QC#113558

This one actually does require investigation (as to why it was closed
"as designed"). I'll look into it.

-- 
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
0
Dave
4/15/2013 12:22:15 AM
> {quote:title=Leo Siefert wrote:}{quote}
> Bruno Fratini <> wrote:
> 
> >I'm quite disappointed with the answers/feedback I'm getting by QC
> 
> Perhaps you are expecting QC to be something which it is not.
> 
> QC is intended only as a bug reporting facility, not a way of getting
> answers or solutions to problems. If you want help from Embarcadero,
> then, basically, you have to pay for it. If you want help from fellow
> users, then post your problems in one of the technical newsgroups.
> There you may even be able to get help from someone at Embarcadero, as
> some of the techies there do participate in the newsgroups when they
> have time to spare.
> 
> QC does offer some indirect help in that it provides a place for
> posting workarounds for bugs, but if you post a report in the hopes
> that someone will promptly post a workaround you are likely to be
> disappointed. Better to do a search and find out if someone else has
> posted the same bug and already had a workaround added.
> 
> Many QC sysops are unpaid volunteers from the user community and they
> are not trained beyond being pointed to a set of written guidelines.
> Most do go through an initial period of oversight by the sysop who
> invited into the fold and may get feedback on their performance -
> especially if they take the initiative to ask questions.
> 
> In general, the feedback they are expected to give is simply to
> indicate any deficiencies in you report which would prevent it from
> being opened.
> 
> Internally, Embarcadero uses a separate bug tracking system which is
> partially fed by QC reports that have been opened. But comments and
> information entered on the internal reports does not often get copied
> into QC. So you should basically consider QC to be a one-way street,
> not a way to get feedback from Embarcadero.
> 
> I'm not saying that this is particularly a good thing, just that this
> is the way it is, and seems to be the way it was intentionally
> designed. If you want help or feedback, don't expect to get it from
> QC.
> 
>  - Leo

Hi Leo,
Sorry but I'm not getting your point. Meaning the QC I posted as example, exactly as all the other QC we opened are not help/feedback request. Are regular QCs for bugs and essentially no one of them have a workaround. 

What I was telling is that anyway independently of how much valid the report could be, it seems that the general rule is a total lack of feedback by the operators and in more than one report I clearly had the feeling it wasn't neither read properly and rushy closed just because the real aim of the report wasn't get.

About the operators that are not EMBT workers sorry but I have to disagree too. That mean they don't get paid for that but anyway, my personal point of view is, if you take ownership of a job you should do it as it has to be done, otherwise just don't do it and EMBT should grant the operators, paid and not paid, should meet some quality requirements.

Anyway, it is demanding so much that if you spend hours to seek a bug and generate all the required info for compiling a QC report the operators should have at least give you feedback about it when they change status and so on? This is the point by my point of view.

Regards,
Bruno
0
Utf
4/15/2013 7:16:18 AM
Hi Dave,
Sorry but your answer seems to me quite aggressive and not exactly consistent.

> QC#113531
> It has been explained; more than once. That you're unwilling to accept
> the answer given doesn't make it untrue. It is currently not a feature,
> and not a bug, therefore your request is an enhancement.

Letting apart why a feature that always worked in Delphi for all the types doesn't work only when generics are involved sincerely sounds a lot more as a bug than a feature request. Anyway, take a look to date-time of the comments. In no one of the resolutions there is a single line of explanation so nothing there. The first comment of the operator (13/03) is just "I changed [Type] field from B to F.". Ok so where is the explanation there? The following comment of the operator is "The type was changed from
 B to F in our internal tracking system. It is not a bug." honestly this is not an explanation too. This is just "because we said so" that's quite not an explanation. So I had to spend days before getting some feedback just because I was asking and asking and asking.

> QC#113543
> Probably because it didn't need any further explanation. The
> functionality doesn't exist for record helpers; the documentation
> should reflect this.

Let me understand. The official documentation of the product Embarcadero sells says I can use a certain feature. Later on it result that this is not true and your opinion is no feedback is required? Maybe for achieving a minimum QoS an explanation about the documentation is wrong was required. 

> When the documentation infers functionality that intentionally hasn't
> been implemented, yes.

Ehm let me double disagree on this. First I don't see how less functionality given should be proudly shown as "intentionally" not implemented. Anyway, the documentation of a product that is regularly bought is the holy bible. If you sell me something listing a certain set of features I buy it maybe for that. When I try to use it exactly as the documentation says and it doesn't work well this is exactly the definition of a bug. R&D may understand what the customers expect is what is in the official documen
tation, not what is in their internal design document. When those 2 documents are not coherent between each other, the responsibility is 100% of Embarcadero so instead of giving feedback as "because we say so" maybe a "Sorry there is a documentation error because the functionality wasn't designed as it is described. Maybe we could add it as enhancement request." would be quite more appropriate.

> QC#113554, 113555
> Same as for QC#113531: that you're unwilling to accept the explanations
> doesn't make them untrue.

False. Exactly as QC#113531 some kind of detailed (if any) feedback arrived only after asking and asking. At the beginning the reports got closed and no one line of comment for QC#113554 and a counter question for QC#113555, that is not what is called a feedback. A feedback of a question about something that is not working is why is not working not asking for another maybe similar staff works or not.

> QC#113558
> This one actually does require investigation (as to why it was closed
> "as designed"). I'll look into it.

Dave, seriously I don't want to seem rude but are you serious answering like that? By my knowledge there are only 2 options: the report is correct so it stays opened till solved, the report is not valid so it gets closed and an explanation of why it's invalid is added. If it requires investigation it should stay opened. Closing it with a "as designed" when it is an opened issue is against any kind of ticketing tool rules.

Adding that, I don't see any investigation requirement. An update tool that does not find any update available when it is and does just nothing it's clearly a "total failure" bug. I'm sorry to tell you this but it really seems as just keeping opened reports statistic under control at any cost. 

Anyway, I asked feedback since more than 1 month and I received no feedback but the report closed instead. Also accepting the report "needs investigation", how do you justify this?

Concluding
Maybe if who follows the reports would understand the declared and expected functionalities are the one in the official documentation and not the ones in the internal R&D design documents and when a user find something that seems to him/her is not working properly, independently that if he/she is right a proper feedback could improve the overall service satisfaction and product quality. For sure feedback like "because yes" are not explanation and they have the only result of irritating the customer.

Regards,
Bruno Fratini
0
Utf
4/15/2013 7:55:49 AM
Iván Vargas Zúñiga <> wrote:

>QC we opened are not help/feedback request. 
>Are regular QCs for bugs 

Ok

>the general rule is a total lack of feedback 

As I said, QC is a way of reporting bugs, not a way of getting
feedback or help.


>I clearly had the feeling it wasn't neither read properly and 
>rushy closed just because the real aim of the report wasn't get.

The report you referenced is Open, not Closed. In fact, it appears to
have been opened on the same day it was filed. Then it was closed the
next day, but the sysop who opened it originally followed up an
reopened it the following day - presumably after clearing up whatever
had prompted the  closing. So two days after you filed it the report
was opened and it remains open. Why are you complaining about the
sysop's handling of this?

>they don't get paid for that but anyway, my personal point of view 
>is, if you take ownership of a job you should do it as it has to 
>be done

And it was done. What more do you expect of the sysop. the only job of
a sysop is to get valid QC reports open and that was done.

>Anyway, it is demanding so much that if you spend hours to seek a bug 
>and generate all the required info for compiling a QC report the 
>operators should have at least give you feedback about it when they 
>change status and so on? This is the point by my point of view.

You did get feedback. The sysop probably gave you the only information
available to him, but you seem not to like the answer. The people who
make decisions on how to classify QC reports do not publicize all of
their reasoning, especially when it comes to new features and
enhancement requests. This is company policy, and my understanding is
that there are legal reasons for them not to promise new features
until a new product is nearly ready for market.

Once something is classified as an enhancement or new feature request
by Embarcadero there is virtually no chance of anyone convincing them
that it is actually a bug. A bug means it does not work as Embarcadero
intends it to work. Apparently in this case it does work as intended -
probably because making it work otherwise would require a major change
to how generics are implemented.

 - Leo
0
Leo
4/15/2013 1:32:57 PM
Hi Leo,
Well I appreciate your effort on being kindly but I'm sorry I still cannot agree, at least not completely with you.

> As I said, QC is a way of reporting bugs, not a way of getting
> feedback or help.

I'm not talking about getting feedback about my personal/job issues or help for them. I'm talking about getting feedback on the same report status changes. At least this is what I have always seen on any "public user reporting issues" service, both when I was manager of the resolution team or when I was a simple user of someone else service.

> The report you referenced is Open, not Closed. In fact, it appears to
> have been opened on the same day it was filed. Then it was closed the
> next day, but the sysop who opened it originally followed up an
> reopened it the following day - presumably after clearing up whatever
> had prompted the  closing. So two days after you filed it the report
> was opened and it remains open. Why are you complaining about the
> sysop's handling of this?

I think we mismatching QC# the one I was telling was got closed is still closed. Anyway that doesn't matter. I'm not complaining about if it is closed or not. I guess sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong as it normally happens. I'm complaining about the lack of any feedback on the changes. I'm complaining about it seems what users says is taken over lightly, it seems as it doesn't really matter. Exactly as I stated at the beginning, it seems customer care/satisfaction is completely out of
 scope and sometimes neither being kindly.

> And it was done. What more do you expect of the sysop. the only job of
> a sysop is to get valid QC reports open and that was done.

Ok, disagree but as I told from the beginning I'm willing to listen other user opinions and possibly users not other operators/R&D team ones because of course they will want to defend their own behave as it is normal. By my point of view a sysop should also grant a service quality to the users and be kindly and communicative, by MY point of view, must be included in the pack. In addition let me add that, if a sysop take lightly user opinion about a certain subject, it could happen he misses the chance to 
improve the product quality and that should be another goal of sysops.

> You did get feedback. 

No well that's not true. Check various of the QC I've indicated and you'll find I didn't get any feedback at all if not after asking and asking and in some case neither in that case I received any answer, as that QC that I waited 20 days for receiving an answer just for discovering it closed all of a sudden. One month is passed and still no one single reply by sysops.

>The sysop probably gave you the only information
> available to him, but you seem not to like the answer. 

Again, is difficult telling if I like or not the answer when no answer is given.

>The people who make decisions on how to classify QC reports do not publicize all of
> their reasoning, especially when it comes to new features and
> enhancement requests. 

Sorry but I never said something like that. There is quite a big difference between writing a romance and/or unveiling future version features and give some line of feedback about the current status against the current on the market version and maybe instead of closing closing change it to feature/enhancement request.

>This is company policy, and my understanding is
> that there are legal reasons for them not to promise new features
> until a new product is nearly ready for market.

Nobody asked them for promising new features. We just asked them to be more kindly and communicative.

> Once something is classified as an enhancement or new feature request
> by Embarcadero there is virtually no chance of anyone convincing them
> that it is actually a bug. 

Well here we start to have a serious disagreement. There should be some manager/coordinator/supervisor that checks this kind of stuff. Otherwise more than a quality service it becomes more a dictator service. I wanna tell it with a joke but surely you can get the meaning. So if the developer had a bad night with his girl-friend and he is in a bad mood could reject whatever report just because nobody counter checks it? This doesn't sound promising as quality of service. 

Actually, telling that, you just centred one of the main points: is it fine that a product quality service 100% depends on personal opinion of the sysop of the day? Wanting to be bad, If I would be a guy from R&D team I could reject every report just because I don't want to do more work, anyway nobody is going to review my decisions.

>A bug means it does not work as Embarcadero
> intends it to work. 

No sorry but this is not like that. A bug is not how a functionality behave against internal Embarcadero design a bug is how it works against the official documentation features list. The customers buy and use the product basing on the latter one, everything that goes out of that it's a bug because THAT is the "contract" with the customers. Or well would you find it normal that I sell you a car that in the features has 5000cc and the reality is it has 1000cc? And when you (obviously) come to me to complai
n I tell you "hey that is as we designed it". Would you feel ok with that because they decided it works as expected or would you feel as you got a robbery? 

>Apparently in this case it does work as intended -

I don't know now to which QC# you are referring but at this point I think you already got if that specific report was wrongly closed or not is not the point.

> probably because making it work otherwise would require a major change
> to how generics are implemented.

Well and so? Here I think there is some concept mixing: One thing is how it must work due to the sold features list. Another thing is how it should work because it would be logically better for the customer (improving quality). One another thing is how it works due to how it was designed. If the latter one fails to match the first one and possibly the second one too, is what at work we call "bad design" and typically we are forced to redesign it. Surprisingly in quite a lot of sysop answers I understand e
xactly the opposite. If it is designed like that, it is fine like that... as the current implementation would be a priority against supposed sold features, quality and customer needs!!!

Best regards,
Bruno
0
Utf
4/15/2013 4:22:08 PM
Iván Vargas Zúñiga wrote:

> The following comment of the operator is "The type was changed from
>  B to F in our internal tracking system. It is not a bug." honestly
> this is not an explanation too. This is just "because we said so"
> that's quite not an explanation.

I agree: the engineer could have provided a more detailed explanation,
however Blaise Thorn has since provided one anyway.

> Anyway, the documentation of a product that is regularly
> bought is the holy bible. If you sell me something listing a certain
> set of features I buy it maybe for that.

The documentation is not a contract. Features won't be put in simply
because of errors in the documentation.

> False. Exactly as QC#113531 some kind of detailed (if any) feedback
> arrived only after asking and asking. At the beginning the reports
> got closed and no one line of comment for QC#113554 and a counter
> question for QC#113555, that is not what is called a feedback. A
> feedback of a question about something that is not working is why is
> not working not asking for another maybe similar staff works or not.

No feedback doesn't validate your report, and you have now been given
feedback with an explanation. That there was no feedback earlier does
not change the validity of the explanation.

> > QC#113558
> > This one actually does require investigation (as to why it was
> > closed "as designed"). I'll look into it.
> 
> Dave, seriously I don't want to seem rude but are you serious
> answering like that? By my knowledge there are only 2 options: the
> report is correct so it stays opened till solved.

You're absolutely right: if the report is correct, it should not have
been closed as "As Designed".

> Adding that, I don't see any investigation requirement. An update
> tool that does not find any update available when it is and does just
> nothing it's clearly a "total failure" bug.

My investigation would include checking those versions affected, and as
to why the report was closed as "As Designed". If you don't think these
investigations are required, I'll not do them.

-- 
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
0
Dave
4/15/2013 11:44:11 PM
Hi Dave,
Well without wanting to be over-long again

> I agree: the engineer could have provided a more detailed explanation,
> however Blaise Thorn has since provided one anyway.

> No feedback doesn't validate your report, and you have now been given
> feedback with an explanation. That there was no feedback earlier does
> not change the validity of the explanation.

What I pointed out from the beginning of this thread is not about if this or that QC is correct but about the lack of feedback. Thorn provided some after I was asking and asking. I would expected to get some feedback without having to "pray" for it.

> The documentation is not a contract. Features won't be put in simply
> because of errors in the documentation.

Well the documentation is not a formal contract but it is what the customers expect to find as features and usage in the environment. When it doesn't match how the language/environments works it's a lack by Embarcadero independently if it is a lack of functionality or a documentation mistake. So again some operator feedback would be welcome.

> My investigation would include checking those versions affected, and as
> to why the report was closed as "As Designed". If you don't think these
> investigations are required, I'll not do them.

If you tell me this is the investigation of course I agree with it. Again it is the lack of feedback that makes difficult for the user to understand what is happening about his report.

BTW: about the investigation if it could be of some use to you it happens at least by the first XE2 release.

Regards,
Bruno
0
Utf
4/17/2013 3:36:26 PM
Iván Vargas Zúñiga wrote:

> BTW: about the investigation if it could be of some use to you it
> happens at least by the first XE2 release.

If I'm able to find a copy of an XE2 release that doesn't have updates,
I'll check it out, thanks.

-- 
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
0
Dave
4/17/2013 10:21:50 PM
> {quote:title=Dave Nottage wrote:}{quote}
> Iván Vargas Zúñiga wrote:
> 
> > BTW: about the investigation if it could be of some use to you it
> > happens at least by the first XE2 release.
> 
> If I'm able to find a copy of an XE2 release that doesn't have updates,
> I'll check it out, thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Dave Nottage [TeamB]

Well Dave, if you have an XE3 with Update 1 you already have the case on your hands. The update tool won't find the Update 2.
0
Utf
4/19/2013 8:49:02 AM
I wrote:

> If I'm able to find a copy of an XE2 release that doesn't have updates

I just tested with an ISO of XE2 that had update 1 included. The update
check worked without a problem (detected Update 4 and installed OK)

-- 
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
0
Dave
5/5/2013 6:37:25 AM
> {quote:title=Dave Nottage wrote:}{quote}
> I wrote:
> 
> > If I'm able to find a copy of an XE2 release that doesn't have updates
> 
> I just tested with an ISO of XE2 that had update 1 included. The update
> check worked without a problem (detected Update 4 and installed OK)
> 
> -- 
> Dave Nottage [TeamB]

Hi Dave,
Well although we went OT with this particular QC, I want to confirm you now it is working. I don't know exactly in which version it changed but I had installed XE4 and the update tool correctly identified the Update 1 was available and installed it.

Regards,
Bruno
0
Utf
8/19/2013 9:34:00 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Jpeg quality is so low in FF3 than in ie7 & FF2.
Name: Sasika Email: sasikaadeshatgmaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Jpeg quality is so low in FF3 than in ie7 & FF2. Comments: when i look some graphical webpages (lets say a website with more jpeg creative images) in firefox 3 & in ie7, the jpegs looks so much sharpe & clear in ie7 & in firefox2. but firefox 3 looks blured & bit unclear. I think the firefox developers has try to improve its loading time in webpages so that they have defaulty reduce the jpeg compression bit more in firefox3. But this would affect to those who like to see there websites...

Quality Central down?
Hi, I found two bugs in Delphi's TypInfo unit which I wanted to post with quality central but today I'm getting a lot of timeouts and error pages. I'm logged in but it doesn't show my user name. Instead it only says "You are logged in as" and the rest is missing. So I'm trying to submit a new report but there's no text next to "Report Submitter:" (which I guess is a required field). Quality Central feels really buggy and non-intuitive! Is anyone else having these problems? Thanks, Markus Markus Hastreiter wrote: > I found two bugs i...

Quality Central and Attachments
Is the ability to create attachments for some bug reports and not others a server-control configuration (e.g., being enabled by administration for some categories, and disabled for others)? Also, why am I required to download a native executable in order to upload attachments, as I was told in this report: http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=111809 The following QC report has not allowed me to attach a ZIP file to a report, because there is no option for it. (This is a separate issue to the HTML entity encoding/decoding inconsistencies mentioned briefly in the above report.) ht...

What happened to Quality Central??
I am a Registered 2007,2009,2010 user and a trial XE user...I have a 2010 and XE problem that hasn't been answered on Forums....I want Embarc to look at as it is a Linker issue. I cannot find QC...so how do I get real support from Embarc???? In article <389363@forums.embarcadero.com>, charles leggette <> wrote: > I am a Registered 2007,2009,2010 user and a trial XE user...I have a 2010 and > XE problem that hasn't been answered on Forums....I want Embarc to look at as > it is a Linker issue. > I cannot find QC...so how do I get real support from Embar...

quality
Name: Wesley Email: wesleypsp2000_at_hotmail.com Product: Firefox 2 Beta 2 Summary: quality Comments: very good and pratice Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; pt-PT; rv:1.8.1b2) Gecko/20060821 Firefox/2.0b2 ...

Quality
Name: Jose Product: Firefox Summary: Quality Comments: I hope this version of Firefox is characterized by its quality, above all. Quality reflected in quickness and security. Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; es-ES; rv:1.9b2) Gecko/2007121120 Firefox/3.0b2 ...

Relink Quality Central
Is there a way to connect the IDE Tools / Quality Centry to the new Server? Currently it looks for the old server qc.embarcadero.com. Using XE7, installed from the ISO delphicbuilder_xe7_upd1_win.iso. Martin wrote: > Is there a way to connect the IDE Tools / Quality Centry to the new > Server? Are you referring to QualityPortal? That is a VERY different beast than QualityCentral, and there is no QP client available, so you have to access it from a we browser. > Currently it looks for the old server qc.embarcadero.com. That is still the current QC server. --...

Quality Central Outage
Quality Central will be shut down March 14 2008 starting at 8:00 pm eastern standard time for database maintenance/migration. The outage is planned for 6 hours but hopefully it will be significantly shorter. Update on availability will be posted here Rob Schieck Quality Central is backup keep smiling Rob Schieck ...

Low quality sound
my suse started working with sound automatically, however, thats a very odd type of sound that gives me impression of system speaker being used. it is low and quailty is low as well. in vista sound device is determined as Realtek High Definition Audio and it doesnt match anything of abbreviations yast can offer me as a sound device. i dont yet have clear idea how to solve problems with drivers (only managed to install one for my ati - wow, now that cute chameleon looks really nice and all the vfx!) so please give me some tips which steps to make to solve this edit: pc is tosh...

Quality central reports
Hello everyone Does anyone have a clue why all reports from quality central have a modified date as 03/20/2012 02:24:39 I just create a bug report and for curiosity I queried all recently closed reports to check how things were going there (What reports were being worked on) and I just showed me many old reports all with the same Modified Date Am 20.03.2012 11:43, schrieb Eric Fleming Bonilha: > Hello everyone > > Does anyone have a clue why all reports from quality central have a modified date as 03/20/2012 02:24:39 > > I just create a bug report and for curiosit...

Relink Quality Central
Is there a way to connect the IDE Tools / Quality Centry to the new Server? Currently it looks for the old server qc.embarcadero.com. Using XE7, installed from the ISO delphicbuilder_xe7_upd1_win.iso. Martin wrote: > Is there a way to connect the IDE Tools / Quality Centry to the new > Server? Are you referring to QualityPortal? That is a VERY different beast than QualityCentral, and there is no QP client available, so you have to access it from a we browser. > Currently it looks for the old server qc.embarcadero.com. That is still the current QC server. --...

Quality Central Issues
The web version of QC does not seem to know how many votes I have available, and doesn't make it obvious to me how many I have either. http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?v=-1 Shows a listing of my votes, but there is no column for how many votes I allocated to each item, nor a total votes cast/total available. I removed votes from several reports but I still cannot vote for any other bug reports. It gives me an error about exceeding the number of votes but does not specify what the maximum is! AFAIK, everyone has a max of 5 votes, but I cannot even find a QC page ...

Quality Central notifications
I recently enabled notifications in Quality Central using the standalone application (via "Report | Notifications"). The project I chose was "Delphi-BCB" but when I added the notification QC says the project name is "Delphi". I thought that internally I would get C++Builder reports as well (given that the web interface lumps Delphi and C++Builder together). After a couple of days of notifications I noticed that I am not getting C++Builder notifications. There appears to be no project to select that will give me C++Builder notifications either. ...

quality central does not work
The Quality Central emit the message: "The Server is currently not available. Would you like to start in offline mode?" After answer YES, the error message "Session id not valid. Please log in". But I don't known how to login from the IDE. That appears in Embarcadero Rad Studio XE6, XE7 and CodeGear RAD Studio 2007. What can I do? El 9/11/14 a las 12:31, Martin Stratmann escribió: > The Quality Central emit the message: "The Server is currently not > available. Would you like to start in offline mode?" > > After answer YE...

Web resources about - Low quality of the Quality Central & Co. or too pretending customer? - embarcadero.dev.qualitycentral

Man Fools More Than 500,000 Facebook Users Pretending To Be Lottery Winner
As we learned earlier with the ubiquitous “ In response to the new Facebook guidelines ,” posts, Facebook users will share just about anything ...

7/365: Working (or pretending to) - Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Thought I would take one in the office for a change. Note my high tech "post-it" control system and my two mugs (Happy/Stressed).

Pretending to Be Humans of New York - YouTube
Prank call your friends without saying a thing - http://prankdial.com Starring http://tylerfischer.com, Directed by Skyler Fulton, Shot by Jason ...

Scammers pretending to be tax office using text messages
A text message that begins “Good news from the Australian Taxation Office” is not good news at all.

Not that Dave Wilson - Texas politician elected by pretending to be black
A politician in Texas has been accused of "disgusting" dirty tricks after winning a local election against an African-American opponent by pretending ...

Gayle Newland jailed for eight years for pretending to be a man to have sex with a female fan
A WOMAN has been jailed for eight years by a British court after tricking a friend she met on Facebook into having sex with her for two years ...

'We already exist ... stop pretending that we don't'
'We already exist ... stop pretending that we don't'

I was still pretending I was dead: survivor's terror - Anders Breivik
A youth leader who survived the massacre at a Norwegian youth camp has described from his hospital bed how he played dead as the gunman stood ...

Paris attacks: Melbourne woman narrowly escapes injury by hiding and 'pretending to be dead'
A Melbourne woman narrowly escapes injury in the Paris terror attacks by hiding and pretending to be dead.

Justin Bieber: 'I'm not who I was pretending to be'
Justin Bieber has apologized to fans for coming off as "arrogant" and "conceited" following an appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show.

Resources last updated: 11/30/2015 8:23:45 AM