Spyke
Rhaedasreply
fedia.io

I feel called out. I'm not sure which way I'd go.

27

You know what this is based AF because if you don’t do it a second time how would you know if it wasn’t a weird edge case or a race condition or maybe you just didn’t internalize the cause and effect because you weren’t looking for it until a bug appeared

5
floofloofreply
lemmy.ca

When it does a different crazy thing every time and you have no idea why, it means you're a genius and have created life.

18
feddit.uk

You make a change. It doesn't fix it.

You change it back. The code now works.

32

the real fix was the journey, the destination never mattered

11
infosec.pub

The usual for me is that I flip back over to my editor and hit ctrl+save, cause heaven forbid I ever remember to do that before running.

24

and sometimes that's exactly what's needed. Services wake up, connections get established and then when you try again things are up and it works.

7
lemmy.world

The absolute worst thing that can happen is if it suddenly starts working without doing anything

15
lemmy.world

Not sure which is worse. When you know you changed nothing and it inexplicably starts|stops working compared to yesterday

12

Far worse, and this applies to more than programming. If something is broken, I want it to be consistent. Don't fix yourself, or sort of work but have a different effect. Break, and give me something to figure out, damn it.

12

Running the code again is fast and requires no thinking. Finding the problem is slow and requires a lot of thinking.

It's worth looking under the light-post in case your keys somehow rolled there. Just not for long.

12
lemmy.world

You jest but “wait and retry” is such a powerful tool in my DevOps toolbox. First thing I tell junior engineers when they run across anything weird

12

Honestly, in DevOpS, when you’re running stuff in a GitHub Action/Azure DevOps Pipeline/Jenkins, yeah… sometimes a run will fail for no obvious reason.

And then work the next time (and the next 100+ times after that) when you haven’t changed a damn thing.

6
feddit.uk

Ah, come on this is valid investigation.

If you get the same error every time, you know you can find it and debug it, somewhat with ease.

If you don’t, you might have a thornier issue at hand.

10

I hate how stupid and obvious this is, but we all do it at least once if the compile is short. But with a 20 min compile, I am investigating.

2

I started coding professionally using Visual Basic (3!). Everybody made fun of VB's On Error Resume Next "solution" to error handling, which basically said if something goes wrong just move on to the next line of code. But apparently nobody knew about On Error Resume, which basically said if something goes wrong just execute the offending line again. This would of course manifest itself as a locked app and usually a rapidly-expanding memory footprint until the computer crashed. Basically the automated version of this meme.

BTW just to defend VB a little bit, you didn't actually have to use On Error Resume Next, you could do On Error Goto errorHandler and then put the errorHandler label at the bottom of your routine (after an Exit Sub) and do actual structured error handling. Not that anybody in the VB world ever actually did this.

9

Just making sure that the write buffer was flushed or something.

7

When your Makefile is so fucked up that you have to run it multiple times to get everything to build and link properly.

6
lemmy.world

Or the code you are working on is calling a system that is currently unreliable which you cannot be responsible for.

Fuck test automation, it's a fucking trap get out of it as soon as you can

1
jtrekreply
startrek.website

Fuck test automation, it’s a fucking trap get out of it as soon as you can

lol.

Meanwhile, the org I work at has no test automation, so things that should be trivial require hours of tedious, error-prone, manual testing. Also they break stuff and don't find out until after it's merged.

3
Skullgridreply
lemmy.world

This post has appeared in multiple places. It's useful , but it ruins the development career potential of people that stick with it, because any subsequent job application just sees "TESTER" and not "DEVELOPER" and bars you from changing specialization.

1
jtrekreply
startrek.website

I've known several people who moved from QA and testing to developer roles, but usually as an internal transfer.

Most recruiters and management don't know shit about fuck when it comes to technical details, so it's not surprising a lot of them think "Oh the guy who knows how software works and how to handle edge cases? No, we don't want him"

1

moved from QA and testing to developer roles, but usually as an internal transfer.

yeah. My current company botched mine.

1
sh.itjust.works

Most applications aren't written to compile deterministically so there is always a chance.

-3
lemmy.world

Compile? Is that true? Pretty sure compilers are generally deterministic in their output.

3
lemmy.world

Hmmm would most code these days be compiled into minified JavaScript? That might be more deterministic.

1
epyon22reply
sh.itjust.works

JavaScript is what is called an interpreted language there is no compiling at all the code is directly read and interpreted at runtime. Most of the time it's minified which reduces the size. Or in the case Vue React or Angular is transpiled which still results in JavaScript code but framework specific syntax is broken out and it's ran through bable to do backwards compatibility for older browsers.

1

No a compiler just translates from one language into another. Transpilers are a type of compiler.

1