• Hasteur (cs)
    [image] Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler

    Why is a senior programmer contacting the CEO of the company to find out why a lamp has been removed? Why do they need lamps in programming? Is it a candle lit dungeon? And finally, why didn't the programmer contact their supervisor first?

  • Mike (unregistered)

    A CEO that cares and has a sense of humor? Weird.

  • Robb (unregistered)

    Please check this comment to see if it is working

  • The third Tim (unregistered)

    A CEO that's not only polite, but also helpful? Fake?

  • Dank (unregistered) in reply to Hasteur

    So TRWTF is that Aastra Phones can't mimic pressing keys when calling automated systems?

  • nonpartisan (cs)

    It was Anton that had the problem with the lamp disappearing, not Devon.

  • The Configurator (unregistered) in reply to Dank
    Dank:
    So TRWTF is that Aastra Phones can't mimic pressing keys when calling automated systems?

    I don't know, my Aastra phone works great.

  • ifriit (unregistered)

    Hey, at least planned dev complained. Here, the new lead dev swept in and deleted all the unit tests because they were "in his way." He has yet to write a single replacement, six months later.

  • Dink (unregistered) in reply to Dank
    Dank:
    So TRWTF is that Aastra Phones can't mimic pressing keys when calling automated systems?

    I think you missed the fact that he had called his cell phone and was listening to a message left by an automated call...

  • john (unregistered) in reply to The Configurator
    Comment held for moderation.
  • boog (cs)
    John Doe:
    Planned dev will not be responsible for fixing 793 unit test every time we try to create a build. As it stands now it takes over an hour to run a build and does not report the 94 failed unit tests until the end.
    Yes yes, because it's the tests that are broken. When unit tests fail, you fix the tests. Wow. That's incredible. Sounds like John Doe is a real keeper.

    No seriously, you keep him. We don't want him.

  • Elmar (unregistered)

    Heh, a buddy of mine changed his marital status to married on their Oracle HR system and this has to be approved by the line manager, who duly ignored it. After a duly prescribed delay, it automatically escalated to the line manager's manager, who duly ignored it again. Wash, rinse repeat and eventually it landed on the CEO's inbox for approval. He duly approved it, and then duly rained down a ration of crap down the reverse line of managers. This showed two things. Their org structure in the HR system works flawlessly and escalations shouldn't blindly go up the ladder ad infinitum :)

  • Neville Flynn (unregistered)

    The second email thread is from the financial markets division of a certain international information/media company, isn't it?

  • boog (cs) in reply to john
    john:
    This sounds like a DTMF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dtmf issue which can be caused by a mismatch between the DTMF type specified on the sip device and the termination point. This seems like a legitimate help desk ticket to me...
    So you think the automated message in the voicemail didn't respond to his button press because of a DTMF issue?

    Hmm...

    Feel free to say "hey guys, I was just joking", even if you really weren't.

  • Bob (unregistered) in reply to Dink

    Thanks, I was having problems with that one. I read it three times...

  • BlueCollarAstronaut (unregistered)

    If anyone knows John, would you tell him that after reading the email he posted here, I tried to type 1 on my keyboard, and my call didn't transfer either, so when he's done with G----------------, maybe he could swing by my cubicle.

    I tried to email him using the address shown in the email, but it came back as undeliverable.

  • trwtf (unregistered) in reply to Elmar
    Elmar:
    This showed two things. Their org structure in the HR system works flawlessly and escalations shouldn't blindly go up the ladder ad infinitum :)

    Oh, but they should. If it gets to the top of the HR ladder without getting resolved, something is broken in HR, and the person who ends up dealing with it is likely the person who needs to know that. If it gets up to the CEO, that's because every layer between the worker in question and the CEO is ignoring routine work and every layer above the employee's direct supervisor is ignoring a failure at the level below. That seems important to know.

  • Rob (unregistered)

    Too bad that some of the commenters on this thread are pulling the answers right out of their Astras.

    Reading comprehension is a GOOD thing... right? :)

    On-topic: I am certain that I must have worked at a helpdesk where John Doe was a developer... or, at least, that would explain frequent buggy releases of the software we supported... :)

  • Coyne (cs)

    Please check your world wide web to see if it is working.

  • Xenon Xavior (unregistered) in reply to Elmar

    I think it does demonstrate that they should go up the ladder. When it finally hit the top, it was dealt with and appropriate embarrassment ensued for all the managers who did not take 5 seconds to approve a no-brainer.

  • anon (unregistered)

    If your unit tests take an hour to run, there really is a problem with the way your tests are made.

    If your unit tests continually fail even if the code changes that were made are NOT buggy, then again your tests may not be very good ones.

    I know everyone loves unit tests these days, but anything that adds an hour to the build time needs to be rethought. Unit tests are supposed to use mocks so that they are lightning fast.

  • SeySayux (unregistered) in reply to Hasteur
    Hasteur:
    Why is a senior programmer contacting the CEO of the company to find out why a lamp has been removed? Why do they need lamps in programming? Is it a candle lit dungeon? And finally, why didn't the programmer contact their supervisor first?

    Of course, if a sysadmin contacted the CEO to complain that a LAMP had been remove....

  • BD (unregistered)

    Since when did it become the responsibility of the IT staff to handle things like desk lamps?

    IT DOES NOT INCLUDE FACILITIES.

  • Sock Puppet 5 (unregistered)
    TFA:
    I sent these emails mistakenly not looking at where I send them.
    But where did he think he was sending them?
  • Penguin (unregistered)

    Maybe the last user was using Linux.

  • boog (cs) in reply to anon
    anon:
    If your unit tests take an hour to run, there really is a problem with the way your tests are made.

    If your unit tests continually fail even if the code changes that were made are NOT buggy, then again your tests may not be very good ones.

    I know everyone loves unit tests these days, but anything that adds an hour to the build time needs to be rethought. Unit tests are supposed to use mocks so that they are lightning fast.

    I mostly agree with you, but the email gave no real indication that the unit tests caused the hour-long build time, rather that John Doe had to wait an hour for the build to complete before he could review the tests.

    It also made no indication that the unit tests were poorly written; one who'd prefer not to test (as John Doe suggests) seems like just the type to make buggy code changes that might cause dozens of tests to fail. If the quality of unit tests was indeed the issue, his email should have reflected that.

    It seems the issue he had was not with the quality of unit tests but rather the quantity. Sure, it may be a lot of work to fix the code, and the many failed tests may not even be his fault, so I can sympathize with him in that case. But his proposal to ignore testing just to get the build out the door offends me as a software developer.

  • WhiskeyJack (cs)

    Clearly he didn't work at Apple, otherwise the answer he got would be more like:

    Suck it up. You'll learn to work better in the dark.

    -Steve

    Sent from my iPad

  • Mason Wheeler (cs) in reply to trwtf
    trwtf:
    Elmar:
    This showed two things. Their org structure in the HR system works flawlessly and escalations shouldn't blindly go up the ladder ad infinitum :)

    Oh, but they should. If it gets to the top of the HR ladder without getting resolved, something is broken in HR, and the person who ends up dealing with it is likely the person who needs to know that. If it gets up to the CEO, that's because every layer between the worker in question and the CEO is ignoring routine work and every layer above the employee's direct supervisor is ignoring a failure at the level below. That seems important to know.

    QFT.

  • Jeff (unregistered)
    I pressed "1" (while listening to a voice mail) and it didn't transfer
    Detailed instructions:
    1. Write the number "1" on the upper left corner of a sticky tab.

    2. With scissors, cut the sticky tab and throw away everything but the little "1".

    3. Gently stick the "1" on the trigger of your favorite sidearm.

    4. While carefully examining the interior of the barrel, press "1" to be transferred.

    You're welcome.

  • ShatteredArm (cs)

    If the lamp company was reasonably sized, I suspect it was the CEO's secretary who had the sense of humor, and not the CEO himself.

  • Jiggly Boo (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    John Doe:
    Planned dev will not be responsible for fixing 793 unit test every time we try to create a build. As it stands now it takes over an hour to run a build and does not report the 94 failed unit tests until the end.
    Yes yes, because it's the tests that are broken. When unit tests fail, you fix the tests. Wow. That's incredible. Sounds like John Doe is a real keeper.

    No seriously, you keep him. We don't want him.

    Isn't that a result of Extreme Programming (perhaps I'm confusing another methodology)? We create as many tests as we can think of to test all functionality. We know when we have created our application when all of our tests pass. Sometimes, it is too difficult to implement correct functionality, so we might have to modify the tests.

    I remember a Uni lecturer explaining it in terms of a banking system: We need to check that if we deposit money, the correct amount is shown in the balance, so we try the following test:

    1. Create new Account
    2. Deposit $50
    3. Check the balance (and make sure that it is $50).

    And the resulting code for the functionality is:

    class Account
    {
    
      <stuff>
      
      int depositMoney(int amount) /* amount in cents */
      {
        /* do whatever we wnat here */
      }
    
      /* get balance of accounts in cents */
      int getBalance()
      {
        return 5000;
      }
    }
    
    class TestDriver
    {
      int main()
      {
        /* Test 1 - Check Deposit works */
        Account myAcc = new Account();
        myAcc.deposit(5000);
        if(myAcc.getBalance() == 5000) cout << "Test 1 Succeeded" << endl;
      }
    }
    

    Of course, I've drifted away from what I was saying about change the tests to pass instead of changing the functionality...

  • by (unregistered) in reply to Jeff
    Jeff:
    I pressed "1" (while listening to a voice mail) and it didn't transfer
    Detailed instructions:
    1. Write the number "1" on the upper left corner of a sticky tab.

    2. With scissors, cut the sticky tab and throw away everything but the little "1".

    3. Gently stick the "1" on the trigger of your favorite sidearm.

    4. While carefully examining the interior of the barrel, press "1" to be transferred.

    You're welcome.

    ^^ -- BOFH? :)

  • Ralph (unregistered)

    While I was working at the corporate headquarters of a publicly traded company (to give a hint of their size) a fellow developer barged into the CFO's office to complain that someone had discarded his coffee creamer from the fridge, and he wanted to be reimbursed. Yes, he had seen the sign about fridge cleaning day, but he thought his creamer would be an obvious candidate for exemption.

    No, he wasn't there much longer. That wasn't the "last straw", but it did help top management become aware of who he was, so that they were quite ready to ratify the decision when the time came.

  • Stark (unregistered) in reply to trwtf
    trwtf:
    Elmar:
    This showed two things. Their org structure in the HR system works flawlessly and escalations shouldn't blindly go up the ladder ad infinitum :)

    Oh, but they should. If it gets to the top of the HR ladder without getting resolved, something is broken in HR, and the person who ends up dealing with it is likely the person who needs to know that. If it gets up to the CEO, that's because every layer between the worker in question and the CEO is ignoring routine work and every layer above the employee's direct supervisor is ignoring a failure at the level below. That seems important to know.

    Further proof why the moronic anti-socials who frequent this site don't belong in mature organizations. You are spot on "trwtf", "Elmar" is in idiot.

    Captcha: nulla, When I programa in Italian I gotta check fora nulla value.

  • Jeff (unregistered) in reply to by
    by:
    ^^ -- BOFH? :)
    Sorry, just a loyal apprentice. :)
  • Vic (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    John Doe:
    Planned dev will not be responsible for fixing 793 unit test every time we try to create a build. As it stands now it takes over an hour to run a build and does not report the 94 failed unit tests until the end.
    Yes yes, because it's the tests that are broken. When unit tests fail, you fix the tests. Wow. That's incredible. Sounds like John Doe is a real keeper.

    No seriously, you keep him. We don't want him.

    But fixing the tests is just a short term solution. Someone is bound to write new tests in the future, and those will fail as well. You need to changed the specification to match the program.

    Many years ago I worked with a programmer who was on probation because he never was able to get anything done without asking for help. The other programmers were told we couldn't give him any advice on his current assignment.

    He came to me and I told him I couldn't help. He said he was being set-up, they wanted to fire him. His reasoning was that he had been given a problem to solve but was never trained on how to handle this sort of issue. Specifically, he had tested the code, even single-stepping the computer (that's how long ago it was) and the computer was doing EXACTLY what the program said. But the specifications said something else, so he needed to change the specs, and he was a programmer, not a designer.

  • Bert from HR (unregistered) in reply to Stark
    Stark:
    Further proof why the moronic anti-socials who frequent this site don't belong in mature organizations. You are spot on "trwtf", "Elmar" is in idiot.

    So in other words:

    Dear Elmar,

    In case you can’t tell, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on spouting your idiotic thoughts on how companies work clearly shows that you’re too much of a moronic anti-social to belong in a mature organization.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron HR Director Initrode

  • frits (unregistered)

    Who hasn't sent an email like this?

  • Darth Deployer (unregistered)

    I have turned off your unit tests...pray I don't turn off anything else.

  • Vinny (unregistered) in reply to boog

    This kind of thing may indicate bad test data. At my last company, we had a lot of data sensitive tests that crapped out and nobody wanted to fix it. Bad design, but not exactly a wtf.

  • Instructables (unregistered)

    Steps to Put Email on TDWTF

    1. Print our your email.
    2. Place it on a clean, preferably wooden table.
    3. Take a digital photo.
    4. Upload that photo onto TDWTF.com
  • Someone (unregistered) in reply to anon
    anon:
    If your unit tests take an hour to run, there really is a problem with the way your tests are made.

    If your unit tests continually fail even if the code changes that were made are NOT buggy, then again your tests may not be very good ones.

    I know everyone loves unit tests these days, but anything that adds an hour to the build time needs to be rethought. Unit tests are supposed to use mocks so that they are lightning fast.

    If your unit tests are taking an hour to run you either have 5 million of them, or they are actually integration tests.

  • frits (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    I'm pretty sure I would have put a fist through "John Doe"'s face after I read that email.
    Your an idiot. I'm tired of you're ignorant, hate-laced comments. Their getting on my nerves, especially when every one is featured.
  • K (unregistered)

    Nobdoy can deny that the answer is going to be hard if you need to answer what drive that is.

  • Gary (unregistered) in reply to Stark
    Stark:
    Captcha: nulla, When I programa in Italian I gotta checka fora nulla value.

    FTFY

  • linepro (unregistered) in reply to nonpartisan

    Wouldn't the Liberator just automatically create a new one?

  • AlleyGator (unregistered)

    The guy complaining about 90+ failing unit tests is totally right. The real WTF here is that he has to send out an email because nobody's fixing 90+ broken unit tests.

    In some companies, unit tests are written based purely on superstition rather than a science. The correct answer here is to rip out useless unit tests that nobody wants to maintain, because they aren't catching any bugs.

  • Procedural (unregistered)

    I don't know what this head is or why it is on my shoulders.

  • graw (unregistered) in reply to Neville Flynn

    It absolutely is.

    I remember seeing it in my inbox when it did the rounds (around that same company) a while back.

  • dubbreak (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Your an idiot.

    I'm pretty sure that implies you're something as well.. just saying.

Leave a comment on “Best of the Email: Too Many Tests, The Great Lamp Caper, and More”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article