>”debugging certain issues will require immense financial effort…”
In my experience corporate would rather have programmers accommodate the bug, or simply build around it, rather than pay for the dev and QA time required to produce and validate a fix for it.
This gets gnarly because you end up with sections of the codebase that are designed around the bug happening. A while back I volunteered to fix a particularly egregious bug, but my pull request was denied because people were worried that fixing it would open up a can of worms. Leadership said that it would be too much of a burden for QA to regression test and we couldn’t be sure it wouldn’t break other things. I settled for leaving a detailed comment explaining the bug and moved on.
In my experience corporate would rather have programmers accommodate the bug, or simply build around it, rather than pay for the dev and QA time required to produce and validate a fix for it.
This gets gnarly because you end up with sections of the codebase that are designed around the bug happening. A while back I volunteered to fix a particularly egregious bug, but my pull request was denied because people were worried that fixing it would open up a can of worms. Leadership said that it would be too much of a burden for QA to regression test and we couldn’t be sure it wouldn’t break other things. I settled for leaving a detailed comment explaining the bug and moved on.