One for the coders - am I getting burned?

[MyUserName]

Not as far as I am aware pretty standard Microsoft tech stack. And no not loads of data at all.

The field would be used in a verification routine e.g
If that field is not population then do not allow save or print for example. Not sure if that throws up a few more issues mind you.

It throws up a couple of test cases but not many, unless it is used in loads of separate overlapping scenarios this does not sound like more than a day or so.

[vwdan]

Is he a contractor?

[mudskipper]

The field would be used in a verification routine e.g
If that field is not population then do not allow save or print for example. Not sure if that throws up a few more issues mind you.

Well it is an additional requirement. It does all add up.

Get him to give you a breakdown of what needs touching to do it and you'll have a better idea. It could be that what sounds simple actually isn't.

[original PM]

Is he a contractor?

No he is permie

Anyway we shall see

[Unix]

No he is permie

Anyway we shall see

Ah he is a permie? That explains it, he has to factor in 5 hours per day surfing the web and 1 hour in extra coffee breaks.

[NotAllThere]

Cheers for this - I have been working with the guy for 7 years and he has always been a bit finicky but he does produce good code.

This has come to a head as this example was routed out in SIT and UAT and we had approx 3 weeks to implement and retest before go live- I thought it was perfectly doable but got a lot of push back.

I may need to investigate to see if there are other issues which are causing this problem.

The work is:
1. Modify the database - main table + lookup - add index to main table if you need to query by the new field
2. Modify the code

Change the create routines
Change the read routines
Change the update routines
Change the delete routines
Amend the validation.

Each of these five modifications to the code should be in separate modules. With good encapsulation (that is, if the program is well written), the changes in one part should not cause other parts to break.

If your programmer truly writes good code (fulfils the requirements, is robust and easy to maintain), then the changes cannot, in my view and experience, take more than half a day, unless there is some complexity to which we're not privy.

[minestrone]

It depends on the architecture really. I've worked on some systems where a few days for that kind of thing is reasonable.

Then factor in the rule of rounding up anything between 3 and 4 days to 5.

Anyways, what is your problem? it's not your money.

[SueEllen]

Anyways, what is your problem? it's not your money.

Permie not performing and generally having a tulip attitude perhaps?

[lilelvis2000]

Hi All,

Just a quick one - I am trying to get some pretty basic coding work done and I think I am getting burned from a cost perspective.

The work we need doing is

1) Add a new field to an existing database table
2) Create a field on the UI which relates to this new database field
3) Populate the field in the IU with a drop down list of items from a pre existing database table (In the same database)
4) Populate the new database field with the users selection from 3.


Now I am being quoted 5 days for this and I am struggling to get it to more than 2 by my calculations.

But any coders out there who can give their perspective?

It's in a .net environment with SQL as the database.

Cheers!

Doable in about an hour I'd say. So they should not quote more than 1 day.

[Platypus]

What value will the new field have in all existing records? Does it need to be populated? This can add to the time required.