Comment On Scheming Schema

Adam worked for a moving company. When he joined up, it was a regional enterprise with several locations and a surprisingly large fleet of trucks. One day, he came to work to learn that he now worked for a much larger, national company, called ConHugeCo. Nobody was getting fired, but now Adam had to get their data integrated with ConHugeCo’s. [expand full text]
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2Next »

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:08 • by Counter (unregistered)
Remy, should it be first "N-1" equipement to load blocks were ignored?

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:11 • by JohnH (unregistered)
This story just stops... sure, it is stupid, but if Our Hero left it at that, I want some Paul Harvey... "and now, the Real Rest of the WTF!"

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:29 • by Remy Porter
400161 in reply to 400157
Depends what you use for "n", now, doesn't it? If the first n are ignored, then obviously we're sending n+1.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:31 • by snoofle
article:
you’re the only one that’s ever had a problem with this

So either nobody else has ever used it, or everyone else has figured out the same thing and has a work-around, and more interestingly, possibly an explanation. Perhaps find one of them and inquire?

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:31 • by Yaos
Status: Closed
Reason: Works on my machine

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:34 • by jEDI (unregistered)
Where's my easy reader version?

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:35 • by Sean (unregistered)
The way to get the documentation updated, is to link the lead programmer to this article.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:36 • by Dee (unregistered)
This isn't a WTF, it's the same as integrating with any enterprisey system using XML. Nothing ever works as expected and each side constantly blame each other. Eventually one side gives up and makes it "Just work".

A recent one was sample data and sample application producing tags like <data load> when the system actually expected <data_load>, but generated no error on invalid tags - it just silently ignored the data.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:40 • by Gary (unregistered)
I suspect a // xpath expression. Should have done this:

<equipment_to_load>
<number_of_pieces>30000000</number_of_pieces>
<van_size>-12</van_size>
<equipment_to_load>
<number_of_pieces>2</number_of_pieces>
<van_size>53</van_size>
<nbr_pads>0</nbr_pads>
<nbr_straps>0</nbr_straps>
<bubble_wrap>N</bubble_wrap>
<item_info>
<equipment_description>Test 1</equipment_description>
<size_length>5</size_length>
<size_width>5</size_width>
<size_height>2</size_height>
</item_info>
<item_info>
<equipment_description>Test 2</equipment_description>
<size_length>5</size_length>
<size_width>4</size_width>
<size_height>5</size_height>
</item_info>
</equipment_to_load >
</equipment_to_load >

Actually, this raises a point: why should it have a number_of_pieces element? That is just count(equipment_to_load/item_info)... And it might be sensible to wrap <item_info> nodes in an <items> element, just to get the advantage of more hierarchy, which is always better.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:44 • by PolarityMan (unregistered)
Pretty sure MQ never touches the message payload.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:45 • by PedanticCurmudgeon
400169 in reply to 400162
snoofle:
article:
you’re the only one that’s ever had a problem with this

So either nobody else has ever used it, or everyone else has figured out the same thing and has a work-around, and more interestingly, possibly an explanation. Perhaps find one of them and inquire?
I think it's more along the lines of "We've never listened to any complaints".

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 08:49 • by ip-guru
Just because nobody complains dose not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 09:00 • by whiznat
Similar punchline:

I once worked for a medium-sized DoD contractor. The accounting lead quit right before we were bought by a much larger DoD contractor. The deputy general manager appointed the facilities guy to temporarily fill the position (who, believe it or not, was actually quite good at both roles). When the new accounting lead got a chance to get familiar with his job, he quickly realized why the previous guy had left. His department was a wreck. I don't think he had done anything illegal, but what he had done was done very poorly. So the new guy tries to tell his boss about all the problems they had, and the boss tells him (direct quote) "That can't be a problem because nobody's ever told me that before." Must be nice to live a world where new problems never crop up and all the old ones you never knew about simply go away.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 09:02 • by snoofle
400172 in reply to 400170
ip-guru:
Just because nobody complains dose not mean all parachutes are perfect.
I am adding that to my arsenal of comebacks; thank you!

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 09:05 • by mister t (unregistered)
400173 in reply to 400169
more likely, 'it works fine when we send items one at a time, just send your items one at a time.'

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 09:25 • by ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered)
400174 in reply to 400167
Gary:
Actually, this raises a point: why should it have a number_of_pieces element?
So that their hand-written XML parser can pre-allocate the array! Then watch it crash when you put in one too many item_info blocks!

Also, why is there a blank after /equipment_to_load ? I was expecting that to be the reason for the failure, because their fragile parser written by Paula Bean broke on it.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 09:36 • by Nagesh
400176 in reply to 400160
JohnH:
This story just stops... sure, it is stupid, but if Our Hero left it at that, I want some Paul Harvey... "and now, the Real Rest of the WTF!"



Agreed and seconded! Where is TRWTF in this? Documentation is not updated and that is common woes all over the world.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 09:36 • by Ironside (unregistered)
pon ies

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 09:38 • by dgvid
My initial reaction to newly found bugs in code that I'd thought was well tested is often to think "You're the only one that's ever had a problem with this." Experience has taught me to keep my mouth shut and assume that the problem is real unless and until I've proven otherwise. I guess the WTF here is that the lead developer isn't very experienced.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 09:40 • by Matt (unregistered)
400179 in reply to 400157
The article is correct. You're the only one that's ever had a problem with this.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 09:56 • by ObiWayneKenobi
You ever notice how the story always paints somebody as a self-serving asshole? In this case it's the WebSphere MQ Lead who just acts like a douchebag to somebody trying to do their job.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 10:04 • by Shutterbug (unregistered)
400181 in reply to 400170
ip-guru:
Just because nobody complains dose not mean all parachutes are perfect.


That's my new favourite quote! :D

captcha: genitus - half way between being a cock and a genius...

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 10:08 • by Yes Bro (unregistered)
400182 in reply to 400174
¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
Gary:
Actually, this raises a point: why should it have a number_of_pieces element?
So that their hand-written XML parser can pre-allocate the array! Then watch it crash when you put in one too many item_info blocks!
Yep, that's most likely it! And therefore the way to get this fixed is to figure out how to DOS their parser with (ideally anonymous) XML payloads, repeatedly, until they get sick of their system crashing and perceive that maybe, just maybe, it might need a teeny tiny bit of fixitude.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 10:10 • by Larry (unregistered)
XML is the new Perl! There's more than one way to do it! And none of them are (likely to be) correct.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 10:15 • by Steve The Cynic
400184 in reply to 400173
mister t:
more likely, 'it works fine when we send items one at a time, just send your items one at a time.'

I vote for this as the most likely cause. And the documentation is "correct" in that it accurately describes the system behaviour in the most common use-case.

It is "incorrect" in that it does not describe the bugged behaviour in other use-cases, but since Adam is the only person trying to operate in one of the not-most-common use-cases, the other team lead's statement is correct as far as it goes.

This all sounds like one of the many cases where the most gratifying method of resolution is the use of heavy weaponry. I recommend pulling a GAU-8 out of your back pocket and using it on the other team.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 10:41 • by just stop it (unregistered)
It's easy to get blood from a stone. A piano, on the other hand, can be quite cumbersome when trying to hit someone with it.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 10:42 • by smilr (unregistered)
400186 in reply to 400184
Steve The Cynic:
I recommend pulling a GAU-8 out of your back pocket and using it on the other team.


That's quite the pair of britches you must be wearing to hold that thing... I wonder what the concealed carry paperwork was like!

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 10:50 • by C-Octothorpe
400187 in reply to 400186
smilr:
Steve The Cynic:
I recommend pulling a GAU-8 out of your back pocket and using it on the other team.


That's quite the pair of britches you must be wearing to hold that thing... I wonder what the concealed carry paperwork was like!
There was no paperwork. Would you demand paperwork from a guy carrying an anti-tank gun?

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 10:57 • by operagost
The developers clearly expect the end users to do this:

<equipment_to_load>
<item_description>item 1</item_description>
<some_other_field>0</some_other_field>
</equipment_to_load>
<equipment_to_load>
<item_description>item 2</item_description>
<some_other_field>101</some_other_field>
</equipment_to_load>
<equipment_to_load>
<item_description>item 3</item_description>
<some_other_field>247</some_other_field>
</equipment_to_load>

Anyone who doesn't see the needless inefficiency in that is not intelligent enough to understand why it doesn't match their documentation.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 11:00 • by mag (unregistered)
I was really hoping that the major issue would've been the extra space before the last right angle bracket in the xmlz

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 11:05 • by noname (unregistered)
400190 in reply to 400170
Well, you usually do not have a chance to complain after that.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 11:06 • by noname (unregistered)
400191 in reply to 400170
ip-guru:
Just because nobody complains dose not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Well, you usually do not have a chance to complain after that.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 11:13 • by AnonCoward23 (unregistered)
400192 in reply to 400191
noname:
Well, you usually do not have a chance to complain after that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 11:18 • by Anon (unregistered)
400193 in reply to 400191
noname:
ip-guru:
Just because nobody complains dose not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Well, you usually do not have a chance to complain after that.


Thanks for explaining the joke for the benefit of nobody who didn't get it.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 11:19 • by Cloy McTrure (unregistered)
400194 in reply to 400191
noname:
ip-guru:
Just because nobody complains dose not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Well, you usually do not have a chance to complain after that.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 11:34 • by Yazeran (unregistered)
400195 in reply to 400187
C-Octothorpe:
smilr:
Steve The Cynic:
I recommend pulling a GAU-8 out of your back pocket and using it on the other team.


That's quite the pair of britches you must be wearing to hold that thing... I wonder what the concealed carry paperwork was like!
There was no paperwork. Would you demand paperwork from a guy carrying an anti-tank gun?


Especially one which could make your car break the interstate speed limit in 3 seconds from the recoil alone... (http://what-if.xkcd.com/21/) :-)

Yazeran.

Plan: To go to Mars one day with a hammer

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 11:38 • by Steve The Cynic
400196 in reply to 400186
smilr:
Steve The Cynic:
I recommend pulling a GAU-8 out of your back pocket and using it on the other team.


That's quite the pair of britches you must be wearing to hold that thing... I wonder what the concealed carry paperwork was like!

TARDIS Trousers, duh.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 11:53 • by VictorSierraGolf (unregistered)
400197 in reply to 400187
C-Octothorpe:
smilr:
Steve The Cynic:
I recommend pulling a GAU-8 out of your back pocket and using it on the other team.


That's quite the pair of britches you must be wearing to hold that thing... I wonder what the concealed carry paperwork was like!
There was no paperwork. Would you demand paperwork from a guy carrying an anti-tank gun?


Wait... maybe, just maybe, Steve The Cynic is actually a A-10 Thunderbolt II that became self aware during that y2k hype...

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 12:09 • by chubertdev
I was at least expecting a WTF about ConHugeCo not being able to update both the documentation and the middleware since it would "break existing integrations."

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 12:10 • by biziclop
400199 in reply to 400191
noname:
ip-guru:
Just because nobody complains dose not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Well, you usually do not have a chance to complain after that.


I would assume almost everyone who tries to open a faulty parachute does complain.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 12:15 • by Ken B (unregistered)
400200 in reply to 400185
just stop it:
It's easy to get blood from a stone. A piano, on the other hand, can be quite cumbersome when trying to hit someone with it.
s/from/with/

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 12:28 • by mainframe web dev (unregistered)

"WebSphere MQ". This story must be from around 2005.

It was originally 'MQ Series' and now IBM brands it as just 'MQ'.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 12:44 • by Valued Service (unregistered)
400204 in reply to 400195
Yazeran:


Yazeran.

Plan: To go to Mars one day with a hammer


That's easy.

1. Wait till a shuttle goes to mars.
2. Board it with a hammer in hand.
3. Profit.

Now, if you mean using the hammer as a means of propulsion, then, that's the joke.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 12:50 • by The Bytemaster
400205 in reply to 400203
mainframe web dev:

"WebSphere MQ". This story must be from around 2005.

It was originally 'MQ Series' and now IBM brands it as just 'MQ'.
Nahhh... they just are very slow to upgrade because they have to validate everything and the documentation first.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 13:01 • by Nagesh
Train your mind and you too can indulge in astral travels around the universe.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 13:05 • by htrjytiut (unregistered)
400207 in reply to 400203
mainframe web dev:

"WebSphere MQ". This story must be from around 2005.

It was originally 'MQ Series' and now IBM brands it as just 'MQ'.

http://www-01.ibm.com/software/integration/wmq/

Out of 21 occurrences of "MQ", precisely one is not preceded by "WebSphere" (and it's the first Google hit for "ibm mq", so presumably it isn't some old page that wasn't updated for the alleged rebranding).

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 13:20 • by C-Octothorpe
400208 in reply to 400197
VictorSierraGolf:
C-Octothorpe:
smilr:
Steve The Cynic:
I recommend pulling a GAU-8 out of your back pocket and using it on the other team.


That's quite the pair of britches you must be wearing to hold that thing... I wonder what the concealed carry paperwork was like!
There was no paperwork. Would you demand paperwork from a guy carrying an anti-tank gun?


Wait... maybe, just maybe, Steve The Cynic is actually a A-10 Thunderbolt II that became self aware during that y2k hype...
The possibilities are endless, and cool...

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 13:35 • by Jim Blog (unregistered)
400210 in reply to 400166
Dee:
A recent one was sample data and sample application producing tags like <data load> when the system actually expected <data_load>, but generated no error on invalid tags - it just silently ignored the data.


Lack of format validation if Very Enterprise Indeed, it seems. I have seriously never seen such poor (and frequently non-existant) input validation since I started having to interface with Java-EE technologies.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 15:13 • by jay (unregistered)
The real WTF is ...

Nah, too easy.

Re: Scheming Schema

2013-01-29 15:16 • by jay (unregistered)
1. receive complaint
2. is there a complaint about this problem already on file?
3. yes: duplicate, reject complaint
4. no: must be user's fault, reject complaint

We are pleased to report that our complaint file remains empty. The system must be working perfectly.
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2Next »

Add Comment