WHS doesn't work

[wjemather]

I'm not sure it's the ISVs fault. Here is an extract from a Handicapmaster email sent on 20th Mar - it clearly states "based on full handicap":

(a) A critical update to software ...

Last week we received a request from the Golf Unions to change the way data is sent to the WHS servers for handicapping Four Ball competitions from 1st April.
This change requires reporting player's equivalent Stableford Points based upon their Full Course Handicap (rather than reporting the player's gross scores) and has invalidated the programming we had previously released.

That was followed by one on 19th April from DotGolf:
"- Please resend us all four-ball-better-ball scores posted since 1 April 2024 at 85% [of Course Handicap] to be processed and recalculated by DotGolf. "

As per my earlier comment - sending/receiving a single set of 18 Stableford hole scores using full CH just isn't workable. That should have been glaringly obvious to anyone with sufficient knowledge of the process.

 

[D-S]

If I had to guess, I'd say testing was limited to confirmation that the scores that were received by dotgolf corresponded exactly with those sent by the ISVs and flagged correctly for each player, and dotgolf testing that those scores were then processed and uplifted on the platform correctly - all done with the assumption they were receiving the competition scores (at 85%).

Wow, just testing that the stuff sent was the stuff received not that it was the correct stuff seems a tad basic.
Surely you would run a test comp to see if what the player scored resulted in the right SD being produced and the right HI change being made. They had a few months to do it in. This is beyond basic.
Also, this must have been evident on day 1. The complaints probably started on day 2.
The fix is being put in on day 29 - with the intervening days just creating more and more and more wrong HIs.

 

[rulie]

Wow, just testing that the stuff sent was the stuff received not that it was the correct stuff seems a tad basic.
Surely you would run a test comp to see if what the player scored resulted in the right SD being produced and the right HI change being made. They had a few months to do it in. This is beyond basic.
Also, this must have been evident on day 1. The complaints probably started on day 2.
The fix is being put in on day 29 - with the intervening days just creating more and more and more wrong HIs.

I suppose that it is very precise (machine precision) but not very accurate?

 

[wjemather]

Wow, just testing that the stuff sent was the stuff received not that it was the correct stuff seems a tad basic.
Surely you would run a test comp to see if what the player scored resulted in the right SD being produced and the right HI change being made. They had a few months to do it in. This is beyond basic.
Also, this must have been evident on day 1. The complaints probably started on day 2.
The fix is being put in on day 29 - with the intervening days just creating more and more and more wrong HIs.

That level of testing shouldn't be necessary.
The issue here seems to be a result of badly communicated/mis-understood specifications (internally within dotgolf and externally to/with ISVs) and lack of WHS process expertise that would have prevented this from happening.

 

[D-S]

That level of testing shouldn't be necessary.
The issue here seems to be a result of badly communicated/mis-understood specifications (internally within dotgolf and externally to/with ISVs) and lack of WHS process expertise that would have prevented this from happening.

Unfortunately it patently was.

Still can’t believe how long it took so called experts to realise there was a problem after no doubt ignoring or not understanding all the complaints. Not that it was a difficult issue to spot, understand and solve.

 

[IanM]

Of course that level of testing" was required. As the last few days posts on here demonstrate.

Its basic stuff. We saw that whoever was responsible for "whs" launch didn't understand (people) change management. Now we see that IT change is also not a core competence.

But I bet they know what Rule 16.1.3b says!!

 

[wjemather]

Unfortunately it patently was.

Still can’t believe how long it took so called experts to realise there was a problem after no doubt ignoring or not understanding all the complaints. Not that it was a difficult issue to spot, understand and solve.

They are software experts, not WHS/handicapping experts; and presumably the software (both ends) appeared to be doing exactly what they had designed it to do.

 

[Swango1980]

They are software experts, not WHS/handicapping experts; and the software (both ends) appeared to be doing exactly what they had designed it to do.

You do realise what testing is used for in software????? It isn't just to test complicated computer code that only software experts understand. It is to test the product, and whether it works. If it doesn't, the reason could simply be down to simple misunderstandings rather than a problem with complex coding.

What do you mean the software was doing exactly what it had been designed for? It quite clearly wasn't, otherwise it would be working now.

 

[D-S]

They are software experts, not WHS/handicapping experts; and presumably the software (both ends) appeared to be doing exactly what they had designed it to do.

Just to be clear, who are you defending here?

Who do you think is at fault for the end result of hundreds of incorrect handicaps?

 

[wjemather]

You do realise what testing is used for in software????? It isn't just to test complicated computer code that only software experts understand. It is to test the product, and whether it works. If it doesn't, the reason could simply be down to simple misunderstandings rather than a problem with complex coding.

What do you mean the software was doing exactly what it had been designed for? It quite clearly wasn't, otherwise it would be working now.

Seems you skipped over my earlier comments.

 

[wjemather]

Just to be clear, who are you defending here?

Who do you think is at fault for the end result of hundreds of incorrect handicaps?

I'm not defending anyone.

Fault lies with all parties (EG, Dotgolf, ISVs).

Edit: and those running acceptable 4bbb and reduced holes comps knowing there were problems.

 

[Swango1980]

Seems you skipped over my earlier comments.

The one about "that level of testing should not be necessary"?

 

[Alan Clifford]

I'm not defending anyone.

Fault lies with all parties (EG, Dotgolf, ISVs).

The person who was supposed to write the specification.

 

[D-S]

I'm not defending anyone.

Fault lies with all parties (EG, Dotgolf, ISVs).

Oh sorry, I thought the any level of real world testing shouldn’t be necessary and the software was only following orders comments seemed as if you thought it wasn’t someone’s fault - my apologies.

 

[wjemather]

Oh sorry, I thought the any level of real world testing shouldn’t be necessary and the software was only following orders comments seemed as if you thought it wasn’t someone’s fault - my apologies.

I'd have thought the subsequent paragraph (along with other comments) would have prevented that misconception.

 

[rulie]

It must be "in the manual". (which seems a common response to questions.)

 

[D-S]

As far as I know there is no miscalculation. ISVs have simply been sending the wrong scores through to dotgolf (WHS). They should be resending the correct scores early this week.

Apparently, according to people who have input test 4BB scores directly into the WHS platform, not via an ISV, an additional problem is that the WHS portal itself is miscalculating the SD.
Probably something that didn’t really need testing.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Absolutely ridiculous situation but nothing new.
I've said it for decades..... golf is the only sport that gets harder to win the better you get.

As an aside, would this thread not qualify for the Rules and handicapping section?

I played in a seniors comp yesterday off the forward (our yellow) tees. My CH for the comp was 5. I’ve only got to that in recent weeks. This is first time I’ve played in a club comp off that handicap and it’s my lowest ever in all the decades I’ve played the game. The playing conditions weren’t the easiest and I found it very difficult and scoring 36 pts would have been a huge challenge - I didn’t - by quite some way.

Looking back to Oct 2021 my CH for yellows was 10 (12 for whites and in general I don’t find yellows 2 shots easier). Whether 7 shots lower or 5 the difference is huge, and room for error so small. The holes I wasn’t getting shots on yesterday…

In a field of 72 I was out on my own the lowest handicap - my two playing companions off 21 and 26 were not untypical of the handicaps of the field - though there were a good few in the teens. Don’t think I’ll bother playing in any seniors - or indeed any - strokeplay comps played off the yellows. I’m still in a couple of matchplay comps off yellows - but matchplay is quite another matter.

The above said I clearly should have better chance of winning ‘closest the hole’ stuff. And on two par 3s I won one and was prob second or thereabouts on another, beating a guy playing off 7 in the one I won and coming second to him in the one I didn’t. So can’t complain on that front.

 

[BiMGuy]

I played in a seniors comp yesterday off the forward (our yellow) tees. My CH for the comp was 5. I’ve only got to that in recent weeks. This is first time I’ve played in a club comp off that handicap and it’s my lowest ever in all the decades I’ve played the game. The playing conditions weren’t the easiest and I found it very difficult and scoring 36 pts would have been a huge challenge - I didn’t - by quite some way.

Looking back to Oct 2021 my CH for yellows was 10 (12 for whites and in general I don’t find yellows 2 shots easier). Whether 7 shots lower or 5 the difference is huge, and room for error so small. The holes I wasn’t getting shots on yesterday…

In a field of 72 I was out on my own the lowest handicap - my two playing companions off 21 and 26 were not untypical of the handicaps of the field. Don’t think I’ll bother playing in any seniors - or indeed any - strokeplay comps played off the yellows. I’m still in a couple of matchplay comps off yellows - but matchplay is quite another matter.

The above said I clearly should have better chance of winning ‘closest the hole’ stuff. And on two par 3s I won one and was prob second or thereabouts on another, beating a guy playing off 7 in the one I won and coming second to him in the one I didn’t. So can’t complain on that front.

Hasn’t everyone else also had reduction in PH off your forward tees?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Hasn’t everyone else also had reduction in PH off your forward tees?

Indeed…just saying that from 7 the two shots I lost from 7 to 5 made things seem a lot tougher. Only 2 shots on the front 9 is for me quite tricky

Our 2nd is a long (455yd off yellows) and tough (drive to a rising fairway with blind second shot dog leg) par 4, and unless I’m careful I can easy double it…and off 5 that’s my F9 shots gone. It’s then in the head as there are two or three further tough holes to negotiate F9.

I’m just going to have to get better at playing to 5.