• (nodebb)

    assumed, wrongly, that the application had succeeded.

    That wasn't an assumption. The application said it had succeeded, and presumably said the same thing when it really succeded, so why would the scripts do anything else?

    But it's definitely a WTF-worthy bug, especially if it's repeated everywhere.

  • Brian Boorman (google) in reply to Steve_The_Cynic

    They assumed the other tool was telling the truth.

  • (nodebb)

    It succeeded at failing, now if it had failed to fail what would you have done?

  • Industrial Automation Engineer (unregistered)

    27 IQ-points just exited my brain. Were they successful?

  • rbh (unregistered)

    On error Resume Next

    Still in my nightmares sometime.

  • Sole Purpose Of Visit (unregistered)

    Wot, Remy, no Oracle bashing this time?

    You missed a step there ...

  • (nodebb)

    Failure is success, exception is the norm, int is a string. 1984

  • NotAThingThatHappens (unregistered)

    I've looked up some definitions of 'Failure' and 'Success'

    I like this one most. "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.” (Churchill)

  • (nodebb)

    Was somebody try to say that they has successfully written to the log? That looks like the only way I could defined that as a success.

    Addendum 2022-05-18 07:56: Oops, they HAD successfully.

    Addendum 2022-05-18 07:57: Oops2, I could HAVE defined

  • WTFGuy (unregistered)

    All sales-led business, which is most of them, know that success is the only acceptable attitude. Admitting failure, even when it's objectively and unignorably true, is just wrong thinking and self-sabotaging. Or so salescritters believe.

    So in organizations like that, returning EXIT_SUCCESS would be mandatory. It would be up to the next step in the tool chain to divine whether the reported sucess is real or illusory. Of course that step too must return EXIT_SUCCESS regardless of factual reality.

    Said another way, it's EXIT_SUCCESS all the way down.

  • Duston (unregistered)

    I can see the movie now... "How To Succeed In Software Without Really Trying."

  • matt (unregistered)

    exited, not exitted, come on man

  • a cow (not a robot) (unregistered)

    A link about the subject:

    https://debeste.de/255597/Task-Failed-successfully

  • Yikes (unregistered)

    In weightlifting, exercising your muscle to failure is a success.

  • (nodebb)

    I need a tee shirt that says FAILED SUCCESSFULLY in big, unapologetic letters.

  • (nodebb) in reply to Mark Wilson

    What about MAKE FAILURE SUCCESS AGAIN?

  • (nodebb)

    This is the shell script equivalent of exception swallowing technology:

    try { // ... } catch { // gulp }

  • (nodebb) in reply to Mark Wilson

    I need a tee shirt that says FAILED SUCCESSFULLY in big, unapologetic letters.

    They have one that's pretty close on Redbubble... https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/successful-loser-by-Yourgood/68160689.FB110.XYZ

  • unconvinced (unregistered) in reply to Steve_The_Cynic

    That one sounds too much like malicious compliance for my taste.

  • gws (unregistered)

    BDConnect? Maybe the real WTF is that they'reconnecting to a "bata dase" in the first place.

  • (nodebb) in reply to gws

    EN: database == FR: Base de Données. Possibly what the "BD" in "BDConnect" refers to...

  • (nodebb) in reply to unconvinced

    I don't see what's wrong with malicious compliance, frankly.

  • Dave Aronson (github) in reply to Duston

    I'm sure that will really catch on, though you may need to wait before it finally does.

  • Ultra Cut Scissors (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • malikaffan (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.

Leave a comment on “Failed Successfully”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article