Timeline for Problem statement for code reuse
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2022 at 12:17 | comment | added | Arnon Axelrod | Thanks @LordOfThePigs for your answer. You're right and I'm aware about that trade-off, but we do whatever I can to make our components reusable and extensible, and we also encourage the teams to contribute to our repo so we don't block them. Regarding the immediate value I see that you agree that there is value in removing this duplication, though it's not immediate. Re the "better solution", this may would have been a good idea if we started from scratch, but not I don't believe that it's worth it. We try to aim in that direction in the long run by creating these reusable components... | |
| Sep 14, 2022 at 10:22 | history | edited | LordOfThePigs | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Sep 14, 2022 at 8:18 | comment | added | Doc Brown | I backup this. Keeping a base code DRY is an issue for one code base, and one team, but DRY does not scale well to multiple teams - the extra organizational dependency can be often far more worse than anything else. | |
| Sep 14, 2022 at 8:06 | comment | added | Laiv | If there's such a thing as a test automation architect it does mean that the organization is concerned about this subject and wants to address something that has been proven to be an endemic problem among the teams. Maybe, the way OP is approaching the adoption of new ideas or methodologies should not be a straight one. After all, Innovation (at any scale) no matter within a company or in the global market goes through stages of adoption each of which of different long (in time). | |
| Sep 14, 2022 at 7:56 | history | answered | LordOfThePigs | CC BY-SA 4.0 |