61–70 of 78 posts
The APIs that they have for testing alone are pretty incredible; I'd love to be able to play in a mode where you could change level on-demand, create dummy enemies, etc.
I've played this game for 7+ years now and as a programmer love to hear about all this. A Rioter said a couple years ago that they used Erlang[0] and as a longtime Erlang (and now Elixir) admirer and tinkerer that was great to know my favorite game uses it.
[0]https://erlangcentral.org/scaling-league-of-legends-chat-to-...
too bad dota 2 is a better game
Funnily enough, the latest patch was rushed out by Valve, and it contained a lot of bugs and strange behavior. Lots of bugs in Dota 2 seems to be happening because of manual testing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'd soon be drowning in individual tests. And it wouldn't necessarily fit to separate them, considering all those 3 have to be tested on each skill usage. One shot has to obey those 3 rules. Making each an individual test would triple the test time, pollute the test codebase and not bring any advantage.
> Making each an individual test would triple the test time, pollute the test codebase and not bring any advantage. Would it really? None of what you said here is true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'd soon be drowning in individual tests. And it wouldn't necessarily fit to separate them, considering all those 3 have to be tested on each skill usage. One shot has to obey those 3 rules. Making each an individual test would triple the test time, pollute the test codebase and not bring any advantage.
The advantage in splitting up the assertions is that you get more visibility. If one test fails and not the other two that's extra information you can use to debug you wouldn't have if you have all 3 in one test.
Ideally, if just one assert fails, it will produce an error message/logs with enough info to tell what went wrong. Having tests produce great error messages is way more valuable than arbitrary rules about assertion density.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case? Probably. But the idea that catching a bug in production is a huge problem is a myth, pushed by research that was later completely withdrawn.
Depends on the bug. Sticking to League of Legends as an example, is it really the worst thing if they have to disable a champion for a day or two to fix a bug? Not really. It still happens fairly often, and the impact is inconvenient but it's not the end of the world. Now how about a bug that prevents logins or crashes the backend? This completely take the game offline. These sort of downtimes hurt customer satisfact…
They have a test client in which a small group of players can test out new patches and find bugs. Recently when patch 6.87 was released, they practically skipped the test client and deployed it straight to the main client. The result was that there were all sorts of bugs in the game, but they worked really quickly to fix them so that after a few days, they were almost all gone. I think Valve's mentality is that it is more efficient for their large player base to beta test for them instead.
Also, there's been a few times when the game is literally unplayable for one or two hours because Valve pushed a random update.
too bad dota 2 is a better game
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When customers discover bugs before you do, it reflects poorly on your reputation and harms the trust you have established with the consumer of your application. That's not a myth.
Depends on your domain. Facebook bugs are less costly to deploy fixes for than router firmware bugs. The specific thing I referred to as a myth, though? That is completely fabricated, the guy lied in his research. Total myth.
A great anecdote in the 'we can't test this code' discussion -- for an aggressive two-week release cycle of this massively popular game, this level of testing has probably paid for itself many times over.
It definitely has. League of Legends is considered a serious e-sport game. Individual tournaments for League of Legends have $2,000,000+ prize pools. If a new bug decided a round of the tournament, it would undermine LOL as a serious contender for this type of attention. There is a terrific business case for investing the time to make this game as stable as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the bug. Sticking to League of Legends as an example, is it really the worst thing if they have to disable a champion for a day or two to fix a bug? Not really. It still happens fairly often, and the impact is inconvenient but it's not the end of the world. Now how about a bug that prevents logins or crashes the backend? This completely take the game offline. These sort of downtimes hurt customer satisfact…
On the other hand, Valve tends to treat bugs differently with Dota 2. They have a test client in which a small group of players can test out new patches and find bugs. Recently when patch 6.87 was released, they practically skipped the test client and deployed it straight to the main client. The result was that there were all sorts of bugs in the game, but they worked really quickly to fix them so that after a few da…