• MoarCynical (unregistered) in reply to anonymous
    chubertdev:
    MoarCynical:
    MoarCynical:
    Steve The Cynic:
    TRWTF is believing any colleague who says he didn't change anything.
    FTFY :-)
    Sorry, I forgot strike-through doesn't work here. Maybe it works better on Discourse? :-(
    FTFY
    anonymous:
    MoarCynical:
    MoarCynical:
    Steve The Cynic:
    TRWTF is believing any colleague who says [s]he didn't change[/s] anything.
    FTFY :-)
    Sorry, I forgot strike-through doesn't work here. Maybe it works better on Discourse? if you do it correctly. :-(
    FTFY.

    Thanks guys! I learned something new, just in time for these forums to become deprecated. ;-)

  • (cs)

    Problems:

    1. Batch files
    2. "Power" shell
    3. C: drives
    4. MS-DOS
    5. Windows.

    Take your pick.

  • Sole Reason for Visiting (unregistered)

    Latest clbuttic comment from Attwood, btw (for those who are viscerally averse to Discourse):

    In my experience, the value of dogfooding > value of arbitrary correctness.

    It is also roughly a fit. Now if we were using air traffic control software or 3d modeling software to keep tabs on bugs...

    The phrase "Architecture Astronauts" springs readily to mind here.

    Well, we've had a poor few months of WTFs recently, although that one a couple of days ago was definitely up to scratch.

    In a way, it's reassuring that Alex is encouraging his buddy with the inflated helium balloon head to come up with a new classic every other day ...

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to FormalWare
    FormalWare:
    TRWTF is the implication that it is EVER summer in Winnipeg. Winnipeg has 3 seasons: Winter, Mosquito, and Under Construction.
    Reconstructed that for you.
  • Rob Nelson (unregistered) in reply to Chelloveck

    The situation where the rewrite fixes difficencies like looking in magic directories for magic files, rather than recreating old issues in new languages.

  • Shinobu (unregistered)

    Badly written, overly wrong, boring, no real point.

  • Abe (unregistered) in reply to Zylon
    Zylon:
    CigarDoug:
    It is certainly the first one where I STILL don't know who the bad guy is after finishing the article. So, what was the WTF, and was there a solution?
    Turns out the president's daughter was deleting the source files off the server.

    And the president's daughter name's McAfee.

  • Martin (unregistered)

    Deploying completely new script BEFORE the upcoming long weekend?

    This is The Real Fail!

    Do it, if you want to fix everything on the holiday.

  • Anonymous Observer (unregistered)
    "Naturally there were also many lines of business logic embedded in the .BAT "

    Hello? business logic in a batch file?!! How much business logic can you encapsulate in batch commands?

    I don't think ECHO, CHOICE, CD, FOR, and IF EXISTS would let you accomplish much....

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous Observer
    Anonymous Observer:
    "Naturally there were also many lines of business logic embedded in the .BAT "

    Hello? business logic in a batch file?!! How much business logic can you encapsulate in batch commands?

    I don't think ECHO, CHOICE, CD, FOR, and IF EXISTS would let you accomplish much....

    For example, routing decisions based on the filenames reflecting their business content would be "business logic"; ensuring that certain files get routed to particular recipients is "business logic", and so on.

  • fa2k (unregistered)

    Maybe you all would like to discuss tomorrow's Error'd here? I wasn't that opposed to the new comment system until I realised I have to make an account to log in. Never gonna do that, sorry. Anyway, my comment...

    Ara beware, next scene LG will break through your door with a fire axe...

    Doesn't really work after all that serious stuff, dammit

  • Valued Service (unregistered)

    Not sure what just happened.

    Not sure if author is sure what just happened.

  • Valued Service (unregistered)

    Paraphrased for the impatient.

    IT Professional, John, always looks for opportunities to automate tasks that repeat and just consume time. If you can get software to do it right one time, and do it right again and again, it makes less mistakes, works faster, and doesn't need benefits. Some processes, however, were ingrained in the corporate culture, and automated these would tread on "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Better to leave them alone. Or so he thought.

    Developer Roman didn't have anything better to do, and was working on a replacement solution to migrate files. He brought in John to help him understand the intent of the code in the .BAT files he intended to interact with. The .BAT file in question was moderately complex. The basic functionality was to look in a directory for a specific file, and when the file appeared, send it to a remote destination using PSFTP. Naturally there were also many lines of business logic embedded in the .BAT file along with this simple flow.

    Some morning after, the process failed. A source file the .BAT depended on was missing. Suspecting that Roman had deployed a change to the production environment, John petitioned Roman for any changes. Roman swore that he was only testing a replacement production program on his own PC. Roman questioned the deployment of the dependency, and John double-checked the build for any problems with components. John suspected that Roman's shiny new program was affecting the production environment, but Roman insisted that his application used a config file to determine which folders to watch.

    This stalemate ensued until John suggested a powershell equivalent replace the whole process instead of a program, and Roman agreed... Or so it seemed... One weekend full of problems, and John was ready with his script. Roman insisted on protecting his love-child, and pushed back.

    Circumventing Roman, John petitioned the managers. Misunderstanding the problem, the managers backed Roman, who wanted to keep working out the case of the missing file, given that he offered to watch the situation over the weekend. Somehow manual intervention in a broken program to replace a working process was deemed the safest option. But what does a lowly IT guy know.

  • Tux "Tuxedo" Penguin (unregistered) in reply to CigarDoug

    Maybe he's understanding is too marrowly defined, but I get the boner every time I read it.

  • Tux "Tuxedo" Penguin (unregistered) in reply to CigarDoug
    CigarDoug:
    Coyne:
    Looks to me like the well of understanding is bone dry; since it seems very unlikely that Roman will bone up on reality.

    I feel in my bones that this is now a permanently manual process. This tickles my funny bone, since it will be Roman (the cause of the problem) wearing his fingers to the bone.

    I think your understanding of the story is too marrowly defined.
    Maybe he's understanding is too marrowly defined, but I get the boner every time I read it.
  • Tux "Tuxedo" Penguin (unregistered) in reply to herby
    herby:
    Problems: 1) Batch files 2) "Power" shell 3) C: drives 4) MS-DOS 5) Windows.

    Take your pick.

    1. All of the above.

    Also Roman is quite .bat man to be able to put up with watching if code failed or not.

    Captcha: I need haero such as .BAT man.

  • dude (unregistered)

    I'm assuming that it was failing because dev b's testing of his new changes was upsetting production, so until dev b stopped testing it was going to keep failing. At this point he stopped testing the new feature to go look for why testing was upsetting production. The new version by dev a in powershell had the new functionality so that dev b could just stop.

    Neither of them should be let anywhere near a computer.

  • (cs) in reply to CEO of IBM
    CEO of IBM:
    WTF is the need to mention 'all over again' all over again right after saying 'déjà vu'?
    It's a Yogi Berra-ism.
  • The Crunger (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    It seems that John intentionally encouraged Roman to leave his broken instance running so there would continue to be a production issue to justify John working on a new script.

    My take: John's manager was Codethulu, who had set John to replace a crap system, but John hadn't yet realized the new system would just be different crap. It can sometimes take years for people to realize this.

    Another manager took a more sensible tack for an intern, limiting the scope of work to a system that didn't matter much, so the kid could produce some real results and learn. There was no time or reason to advance John's larger mission.

    When John and the intern's goals came into conflict, the managers decided to let the kid continue, because the kid could still learn, and the kid's efforts to keep the system running (even if it shouldn't have made it to production) seemed like a trait worth cultivating.

    The article reminds me a little bit of Ticket 232632

  • The Crunger (unregistered) in reply to anonymous
    anonymous:
    MoarCynical:
    Sorry, I forgot strike-through doesn't work here. Maybe it works better on Discourse? if you do it correctly. :-(
    FTFY.

    So, Discourse actually has a straight-forward way to do strike-through, without having to make BBcode summon elemental text-styles from a parallel dimension.

    All just more proof how Akismet Discourse really sucks.

    FTFM

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to The Crunger
    The Crunger:
    anonymous:
    MoarCynical:
    Sorry, I forgot strike-through doesn't work here. Maybe it works better on Discourse? if you do it correctly. :-(
    FTFY.

    So, Discourse actually has a straight-forward way to do strike-through, without having to make BBcode summon elemental text-styles from a parallel dimension.

    All just more proof how Akismet Discourse really sucks.

    FTFM

    But it makes for some fun CSS hacks.

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to anonymous
    anonymous:
    The Crunger:
    anonymous:
    MoarCynical:
    Sorry, I forgot strike-through doesn't work here. Maybe it works better on Discourse? if you do it correctly. :-(
    FTFY.

    So, Discourse actually has a straight-forward way to do strike-through, without having to make BBcode summon elemental text-styles from a parallel dimension.

    All just more proof how Akismet Discourse really sucks.

    FTFM

    But it makes for some fun CSS hacks.
    This and this are two of my personal favourites. Coincidentally, I also happen to have posted both of them. Not that I'm bragging. Well, maybe a little...

Leave a comment on “Boned”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article