MENU
Part 3 "Bonus Program"
During code reviews, it is the author's responsibility... 1 credit [K2]
Suggested Answer: D, E
Get Premium ATTA Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
43 comments · newest first
MI
Michal
10 months ago
Yeah, I thought we only needed to focus on the major defects!
RE
Reita
11 months ago
I believe it's more about addressing the major ones, not all.
EM
Emily
11 months ago
Wait, are we really expected to fix every single defect?
SA
Sabina
11 months ago
Totally agree, fixing all defects is crucial!
TR
Truman
11 months ago
I think it's definitely the author's job to address defects.
JA
Janey
12 months ago
I feel like the author should at least correct major defects, but I can't recall if that was the focus of our last practice session.
DO
Dorthy
12 months ago
I’m a bit confused about whether "take action" means just suggestions or if it includes defects too.
ER
Erasmo
12 months ago
I remember a similar question where we discussed the difference between addressing and fixing defects. I feel like addressing might be the right answer here.
AN
Andrew
1 year ago
I think the author is responsible for addressing defects, but I'm not sure if that means fixing everything.
SH
Shakira
1 year ago
This is a good one. I think the answer is B - the author's responsibility is to fix all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log. That seems to be the most comprehensive and accurate description of the author's role.
BE
Bernardine
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused by this question. The options seem to be focused on different aspects of the defect log, but I'm not sure how that relates to the author's responsibility. I'll need to re-read the question and options carefully.
YE
Yesenia
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a little unsure about this one. The question is asking about the author's responsibility, but the options seem to be focused on the defect log. I'll need to think this through carefully.
HE
Helga
1 year ago
This seems like a straightforward question about the responsibilities of a code reviewer. I'll carefully read through the options and think about which one best describes the author's responsibility.
HE
Herschel
1 year ago
Okay, I think I've got this. The key is to focus on the author's responsibility, not just the defect log. I'm leaning towards option A, which seems to capture the idea of addressing all major and minor defects.
MA
Mattie
1 year ago
I've heard of continuous integration before, but I'm a little fuzzy on the details. I'll need to review my notes to make sure I understand the concept fully.
VE
Veronique
1 year ago
Okay, I've done some autofs configuration before, so I think I've got a good handle on the general approach. The key will be making sure I get the paths and options correct for this specific setup.
WH
Whitley
1 year ago
Ah, the joys of code reviews. Where the author gets to play 'spot the difference' with the defect log. Fun times!
AI
Aimee
1 year ago
C) to take action on only improvement suggestions from the defect log
ST
Stevie
1 year ago
B) to fix all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log
FA
Fannie
1 year ago
A) to address all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log
GE
Geoffrey
1 year ago
I've got a defect for ya - the person who wrote this question needs to review their own code review policies!
VA
Vallie
1 year ago
D) to correct source documents that have major defects
VA
Vallie
1 year ago
C) to take action on only improvement suggestions from the defect log
VA
Vallie
1 year ago
B) to fix all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log
VA
Vallie
1 year ago
A) to address all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log
WA
Walker
1 year ago
D) Correcting source documents with major defects? That's like putting a band-aid on a broken leg. The author should be tackling the code itself, not the paperwork.
NA
Naomi
1 year ago
I disagree. I believe the author should only take action on improvement suggestions from the defect log to prioritize tasks.
LA
Lang
1 year ago
I agree with Tawny. It's important to address all defects to ensure the code is of high quality.
TA
Tawny
1 year ago
I think the author should fix all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log.
TA
Tammara
2 years ago
C) Addressing only improvement suggestions? That's a bit too lax, don't you think? As an author, I'd want to fix all the issues, not just the ones I feel like.
IR
Irma
1 year ago
B) to fix all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log
RO
Rodrigo
1 year ago
A) to address all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log
ME
Melita
1 year ago
B) to fix all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log
RA
Raina
1 year ago
A) to address all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log
OM
Omega
2 years ago
B) Fixing all defects, major and minor, is the best way to ensure the code is of high quality. Anything less would be unacceptable.
BE
Beula
1 year ago
D) to correct source documents that have major defects
MA
Mammie
1 year ago
C) to take action on only improvement suggestions from the defect log
SE
Selene
1 year ago
B) Fixing all defects, major and minor, is the best way to ensure the code is of high quality. Anything less would be unacceptable.
PA
Paulene
1 year ago
A) to address all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log
HO
Horace
2 years ago
I believe the author should also take action on improvement suggestions to continuously improve the code.
MI
Mignon
2 years ago
A) seems like the most comprehensive answer, addressing all defects regardless of their severity. That's what I would expect from a responsible author during code reviews.
EL
Elin
2 years ago
I agree with Francene. It's important to address all defects to ensure the code is of high quality.
FR
Francene
2 years ago
I think the author should fix all major and minor defects as stated in the defect log.