Should all bugs be modified?

The workflow in the project has a bug: "An error is reported when the handler cannot be found in the next step. The handler cannot be found. The handler can automatically go to the next step according to the settings ."

The ccflow process node setting interface has this setting, but after the handler is set to fail to be found, the system still reports an error. After careful debugging of the source code, it is found that ccflow does not implement this function, but directly throws an error when the handler cannot be found. The settings on the Interface seem to be used for automatic execution. It took me half a working day to debug it. First, check whether ccflow has implemented this function and then think about the feasibility of the modification. Finally, discard the modification.

The reason is: 1. the handling person cannot be found. In this case, should the approver be bypassed? I don't think it should be bypassed. An error should be reported, so that the user will know that there may be no one in this position, and he should find an agent. Every step should not jump over the standard process. 2. The risk of modification. Why do we use ccflow? Because I believe it, although it does not have a stable version, I have changed the source code, it does not involve the code that processes the logic, for example, you can change the interface and menu. I think modifying the source code is a pitfall. If it falls into it, it will lead to more bugs. Now there is a bug. The first thing I think of is whether the configuration is wrong. If I change the source code, I will think about whether I have corrected the bug, ccflow's source code contains thousands of lines in a file, which is terrible to check!

So after trying for half a workday, I told the Project Manager: the problem cannot be solved. If you have to solve it, I don't mind if you do it yourself. If the project manager makes the change in person and there is a problem in the future, I will ask him to change it.

 

At work, I sometimes refuse to modify some so-called bugs. Of course, I have my reasons. The above is a type of bug. This type of bug is actually a ccflow bug. If you have to modify the source code, it may cause a series of bugs in the future, which is too troublesome. So I thought twice and tried to modify the bug, so I couldn't decide whether to fix it.

For such a bug, I submitted it to the project manager. The project manager said that the bug that has not been changed cannot be closed. I said that you did not close it and put it there, but the project manager submitted it to me for activation. Then I handed it over to the active user (I don't know what the user is), so I don't have to worry about it!

Should all bugs be modified?