If they don’t like using their free time to write code they don’t have to, it’s free time not work.
So, what it actually comes down to is that they didn’t bother to write tests. There was no time pressure, there was no urgency or requirement, they just couldn’t be bothered to do that prior to release. If there’s a note somewhere saying “I know it’s not quite done...” then I’ll let it slide.
> So, what it actually comes down to is that they didn’t bother to write tests. There was no time pressure, there was no urgency or requirement, they just couldn’t be bothered to do that prior to release.
Kindly go to the source repository.
> If there’s a note somewhere saying “I know it’s not quite done...” then I’ll let it slide. Have you seen something along those lines?
There is also literally a dozen lines in the LICENSE file saying that the software is not quite production ready (THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS") and should not be relied upon (THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS).
It's all spelled black on white, not sure what you would want more from the author?
Hmm. Maybe we shouldn't let unlicensed hobbyists expose their software to the internet - plenty of other things are too dangerous for unlicensed hobbyists to do. Though frankly the standard of commercial code is no better at the moment.
So, what it actually comes down to is that they didn’t bother to write tests. There was no time pressure, there was no urgency or requirement, they just couldn’t be bothered to do that prior to release. If there’s a note somewhere saying “I know it’s not quite done...” then I’ll let it slide.
Have you seen something along those lines?