• Counter (unregistered)

    Remy, should it be first "N-1" equipement to load blocks were ignored?

  • 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!"

  • Remy Porter (cs) in reply to Counter

    Depends what you use for "n", now, doesn't it? If the first n are ignored, then obviously we're sending n+1.

  • snoofle (cs)
    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?
  • Yaos (cs)

    Status: Closed Reason: Works on my machine

  • jEDI (unregistered)

    Where's my easy reader version?

  • Sean (unregistered)

    The way to get the documentation updated, is to link the lead programmer to this article.

  • 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 &lt;data_load&gt;, but generated no error on invalid tags - it just silently ignored the data.<p> </data>

  • 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.<p> </items>

  • PolarityMan (unregistered)

    Pretty sure MQ never touches the message payload.

  • PedanticCurmudgeon (cs) in reply to snoofle
    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".
  • ip-guru (cs)

    Just because nobody complains dose not mean all parachutes are perfect.

  • whiznat (cs)

    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.

  • snoofle (cs) in reply to ip-guru
    ip-guru:
    Just because nobody complains dose not mean all parachutes are perfect.
    I am adding that to my arsenal of comebacks; thank you!
  • mister t (unregistered) in reply to PedanticCurmudgeon

    more likely, 'it works fine when we send items one at a time, just send your items one at a time.'

  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered) in reply to Gary
    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.

  • Nagesh (cs) in reply to JohnH
    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.

  • Ironside (unregistered)

    pon ies

  • dgvid (cs)

    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.

  • Matt (unregistered) in reply to Counter

    The article is correct. You're the only one that's ever had a problem with this.

  • ObiWayneKenobi (cs)

    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.

  • Shutterbug (unregistered) in reply to ip-guru
    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...

  • Yes Bro (unregistered) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL
    ¯\(°_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.
  • 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.

  • Steve The Cynic (cs) in reply to mister t
    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.

  • 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.

  • smilr (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    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!

  • C-Octothorpe (cs) in reply to smilr
    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?

  • operagost (cs)

    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.
  • 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

  • noname (unregistered) in reply to ip-guru

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

  • noname (unregistered) in reply to ip-guru
    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.
  • AnonCoward23 (unregistered) in reply to noname
    noname:
    Well, you usually do not have a chance to complain after that.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk
  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to noname
    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.

  • Cloy McTrure (unregistered) in reply to noname
    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.
    [image]
  • Yazeran (unregistered) in reply to C-Octothorpe
    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

  • Steve The Cynic (cs) in reply to smilr
    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.

  • VictorSierraGolf (unregistered) in reply to C-Octothorpe
    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...

  • chubertdev (cs)

    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."

  • biziclop (cs) in reply to noname
    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.

  • Ken B (unregistered) in reply to just stop it
    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/
  • 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'.

  • Valued Service (unregistered) in reply to Yazeran
    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.

  • The Bytemaster (cs) in reply to mainframe web dev
    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.

  • Nagesh (cs)

    Train your mind and you too can indulge in astral travels around the universe.

  • htrjytiut (unregistered) in reply to mainframe web dev
    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).

  • C-Octothorpe (cs) in reply to VictorSierraGolf
    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...

  • Jim Blog (unregistered) in reply to Dee
    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. </data_load></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.

  • jay (unregistered)

    The real WTF is ...

    Nah, too easy.

  • 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.

Leave a comment on “Scheming Schema”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article