• Quite (unregistered)


  • Quite (unregistered)

    Well that killed the conversation, didn't it?

  • Sauron (unregistered)

    2020 can't be fixed...

  • (nodebb)

    We moved milltion to storage B and took away his paycheck so the issue is fixed.

  • (nodebb)

    Now that's quite a way to sabotage a codebase: disable the working tests and wait for the nature of former cow-orkers to do the rest.

  • (nodebb)

    If this only happened once in several years, it might not be worth fixing the process. Especially if the "fix" involves adding more process or locking down permissions to the point that everyone wastes a few minutes per pull request. If you show that you don't trust your employees, your employees tend to care less about your business.

  • Donald Klopper (google) in reply to Joseph Blasi

    Well, as we all saw towards the end of Office Space, the issue wasn't really fixed, and came back to burn everyone in the end. SWIDT...

  • Prime Mover (unregistered) in reply to PotatoEngineer

    I believe the "process" being referred to here should be something along the lines of: "When writing letters of reference, ensure to word it such that Chris has the least possible chance of gaining employment."

  • (nodebb) in reply to Prime Mover

    "... without actually libelling Chris."

  • (nodebb) in reply to PotatoEngineer

    But like... why disable a unit test? Catching regressions is specifically one of the benefits.

  • (nodebb) in reply to konnichimade

    It's not that disabling a unit test (without good reason, such as "this behavior is no longer even intended to occur") is good. It's that the process required to catch such mistakes up front may cost more than it benefits, depending on how tedious it is (unknown), how often such mistakes occur (apparently just once in several years), and how much trouble such mistakes cause when they're not caught up front (apparently a fair amount in that one case).

  • (nodebb) in reply to emurphy

    Yeah, there shouldn't have to be a process in place to prevent people from disabling unit tests. I am guessing it was an inexperienced dev who was introduced to unit tests in that context and greatly misunderstood what they were for.

  • r (unregistered) in reply to konnichimade
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Ramesh yadav (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.

Leave a comment on “Fixed the Bug”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article