Forums
These fine folks make it possible to run The Daily WTF.
First up this week is a little story about a fifafail. I do wonder if this was a failure of the television station, or whether there was something more to it than that.
Hercules wrote to alert us to these World Cup shenanigans, explaing "At least the flags were correct. And yes, this was live TV. The host got the country names correctly, and even called out that the written text was wrong"
When Gary was called in for a meeting with a few of his managers- because of course he had several- he thought it was going to be for an "attaboy", because things had been going really well for the past few months.
Gary had inherited a mess, and taken over a nightmare application. It was the kind of application that should be a simple CRUD-style data-driven app, but somehow despite only having 20ish entities it managed, someone had generated 500+ controllers for managing them. Most of those controllers were copy/pasted code with minor changes in the WHERE clause of a SQL query.
Gretchen's company recently got purchased by Initech. Specifically, they were bought for their dev team, of all things. They had a few software products that were high performers, and Initech wanted that secret sauce. They bought the company, and then split the dev team up and migrated the developers to new products.
That actually worked out okay for Gretchen, most of the time. For a few projects, the dev team was given some requirements and a free hand to figure out how to deliver them. They were free to reuse code that existed or rewrite entirely, based on their own judgement. They were free to pick the tools they wanted to use, and the results worked out well.
Today's anonymous submitter works in finance. I'll let them start the introduction:
This is a legacy application that has been running for nearly a decade in production so one could say that it's been thoroughly tested by daily production use and nothing needs changing
Lillith was integrating some new tools into an existing Ruby on Rails API. The existing API allowed you to send a dry_run flag along with the request, so that you could have the service calculate its changes without applying them.
The problem was, the new tool Lillith was integrating could send, in the body of the request, {"dry_run": false}, but the service would see it as true. Consistently.
This week we have got a couple of Mathanon's. Maybe they're the same person, maybe they're not, there's really no way to know!
Frist anon has a "Numeric fun fact" for us: "Got a form sent from work to express interest in some event. They actually enforced the validation that the answer must be a number, so I submitted "42"." Bravo.
Today's anonymous submitter has spent a long time toiling through many, many tickets. Their effort has been an attempt to "save" their employer from the disaster left behind by by a highly-paid consultant. As one does, our submitter started with the highest priority tickets with the highest severity. Eventually, they whittled down that list, and had some bandwidth to start looking at the pieces of the code which clearly weren't exploding right now (because there were no tickets), but were likely to explode at some point in the future (creating a storm of tickets).
Scanning through the JavaScript, our submitter found a sort function. That was automatically concerning- why was that particular wheel being reinvented?
There's a language out there called "Progress Advanced Business Language" (or "Open Edge Advanced Business Language"). Just hearing that string of words in a sequence tells you you're in for it. It's a verbose, "English-like" programming language. But we're not here to pick on the language.
A long time ago, Mirjam had the "pleasure" of working in a Progress ABL environment. At some point, one of the developers had needed to find a date six months prior to the current date. It didn't need to be accurate, and thus said developer littered the code with comments reminding everyone that it didn't need to be that accurate. They arguably spent more time defending the choice to be inaccurate than it would have taken to write code that would have been accurate.