Comments on: Woodpecker Apocalypse https://softwaresermon.com/2015/03/21/woodpecker-apocalypse/ Security, Quality, Process Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:15:07 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 By: sdf https://softwaresermon.com/2015/03/21/woodpecker-apocalypse/comment-page-1/#comment-84 Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:15:07 +0000 http://www.softwaresermon.com/?p=17#comment-84 Aw, this was a really good post. Taking the time and actual
effort to generate a very good article… but what can I say…
I hesitate a lot and never manage to get anything done.

]]> By: cardiff space man https://softwaresermon.com/2015/03/21/woodpecker-apocalypse/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:10:13 +0000 http://www.softwaresermon.com/?p=17#comment-20 Your sample code has boost dependencies but you said that C++11 has the features you need. Since I either write code for work or single-threaded code, I don’t know if you needed to use boost to fill in C++11’s gaps or what.

I agree with you that users of the double-checked lock idiom need to be corrected, but the reason should be given: The idiom doesn’t work if the code is optimized.

If you implement automatic unit tests the next thing that you should implement is getting the tests run with Jenkins (or a similar CI platform). After that, implement numerical requirements for test coverage and number of passing tests, automatically enforced with the help of Jenkins. I have heard of shops which enforce percentages of both in the 90’s.

And then you should implement automated functional testing.

]]>