Q / A, release builds vs Debug builds and Assertions

Question

Just curious:

When you release software builds in Q / A, do you prefer to always use the "RELEASE" version, or do you sometimes use the DEBUG version?

Here's my puzzle: We like to use Asserts as traps for conditions that should never happen.

On the one hand, it might be useful for Q / A to test our software with Assertions enabled so that if they can create a script that triggers an assertion, they can let us know.

On the other hand, there is always a risk that the developer encoded the statement so that it changed the behavior of the code. In this case, Q / A should test the assembly with Assertions disabled.

To date, we always had Q / A valid on our Relesae assemblies, as it was the code that would be delivered. However, I am thinking of trying a template where our really early releases in Q / A will come out with statements included. Then, when we get closer to delivery, we will notify them that their builds are disabled.

What do you guys think?

Answer 1

We release both Q / A and tests pass on both. If you have difficulty with automated testing, it just becomes a problem of having additional equipment to run the tests.

, , . /// .., .

Answer 2

QA - , .

Answer 3

, QA , , , , .

. , .

, . , , . , . , , QA .

Answer 4

/ ; ( , ) , Debug Beta, . , Debug, , , ​​, Debug.

Answer 5

We send release builds with debugging symbols so that the performance is correct (widespread use of debugging output and statements may slow down a little), but they still report significant stack traces if an exception occurs.

For exceptions, we have a general rule only to catch exceptions that we know how to handle, so that they pop up in QA if something has not been thought out. Catch-all are generally prohibited in our company.