• sinni800 (disco)

    It seems like the SAP guys don't know how the internet and front-end works.

  • immibis_ (disco) in reply to sinni800

    Really? I never would've guessed. Next thing you'll be saying management is clueless too!

  • Eldelshell (disco)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • SYSIN (disco)

    I'm pretty sure that was the only bug in this system... Now can we have the URL please? I need christmas gifts for all my friends and family...

  • boomzilla (disco)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Peter_Meier (disco)

    So what is this CheckCodes methode doing?

    bool CheckCodes(string code) { return true; }

  • vkovalchuk (disco) in reply to sinni800

    Of course they know! You start the browser, type www.sap.com and read all the reasons why you must buy SAP. Because "It enables you to leverage blah-blah, streamline uh-uh, increase oh-oh while enabling world-class etc." That's how internet works. (for SAP guys)

    On a serious note: yes they rarely consider front-end to be useful and worth learning. But that is not their problem.

  • Eldelshell (disco) in reply to vkovalchuk
    Comment held for moderation.
  • delfinom (disco) in reply to Eldelshell

    Almost looks like a derp photo

  • boomzilla (disco) in reply to Eldelshell

    SAP Augmented Reality.

    I don't even want to think about what that could be. But I assume there's a lot of tripping and falling and getting lost involved.

  • locallunatic (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    Comment held for moderation.
  • vita10gy (disco) in reply to Peter_Meier

    Yeah, this one is hard to believe...at least a little. Incompetence exists. Pissing contests exist. Miscommunication happens. That said, it's a little hard to buy that anyone anywhere could think a validation web service that didn't attempt validation was what was "supposed to" happen. The argument that they provided some sort of "hook" for them to do client side validation is just nonsensical. (Which, to be fair, would be a WTF.) It's one step above saying "We provided the elephant for you to jangle"

  • chubertdev (disco)

    "do not collaborate" is business speak for "go fire up Word"

    Also, how did Kenneth not test the validation logic? There's no way that should have made it to production.

  • DrPepper (disco)

    This one is hard to believe. The front-end guy should have said -- I asked for a backend validation service, and I got a service that didn't do validation. They have to fix it.

    This should have resulted in about 2-3 hours of additional work for the sap guys.

    Instead, the solution was to build a proxy -- including all the infrastructure expenses, testing expenses, maintenance, and on and on -- because the front-end guy didn't have the balls to stand up and correctly blame the sap guys.

    Oh yeah -- and the front end guy must have tested the validation service. "Hmm... I'm still able to provide bogus values, and the validator says that's OK. Probably a bug in the validation service, but I'm not going to tell anyone or log it as a bug.

    Oh yeah -- the testers for the front end must have also tested this. "Hmm... looks like I'm still able to provide bogus values, and the website doesn't reject those. But I'm going to pass the test anyway."

    Lots of WTF's here, and its not just the SAP guys.

  • calliarcale (disco) in reply to DrPepper

    Well, the story does make it sound as if adequate testing was one of the many things thrown under the bus in order to meet the deadline. One wonders if the test was about as thorough as the validation method appears to be....

  • chubertdev (disco) in reply to calliarcale
    calliarcale:
    Well, the story does make it sound as if adequate testing was one of the many things thrown under the bus in order to meet the deadline. One wonders if the test was about as thorough as the validation method appears to be....

    "Test: method exists. Test passed."

  • jslicer (disco) in reply to Eldelshell

    Dammit TrudyHeart1971! What about the pineapple?

  • HaximusPrime (disco) in reply to DrPepper

    I agree that this one is hard to swallow.

    I imagine the original submission was something like

    "I'm on a team of front end devs where we're not allowed to talk to back-end devs. I requested a validation service, and they gave me a service that doesn't actually do any validation. lol."

    And we ended up with this story.

    The tone of the article is that the SAP guys are incredible morons. But, if I knew my application depended on another application to implement an interface that I requested, the first thing I would do when I received the new interface would be to make sure it works how I would expect it.

    I mean, even if he assumed it worked, he'd have to know how to handle both success and failure right? So....how did he generate a failure without testing with bad codes? How did he test that his failure logic worked?

  • Scarlet_Manuka (disco) in reply to vita10gy
    vita10gy:
    That said, it's a little hard to buy that anyone anywhere could think a validation web service that didn't attempt validation was what was "supposed to" happen. The argument that they provided some sort of "hook" for them to do client side validation is just nonsensical.
    That's not quite how it came off to me. I read it as a miscommunication at heart: front end guy says "we need the validation to happen on the back end", and after all the meetings and being routed through several layers of management it gets translated to (or perhaps by) the back end guys as "give the front end dev the validation logic so he can implement it in the front end".

    Of course the idea of implementing the validation on the client side should have set off all sorts of alarm bells for the SAP team. Who knows, perhaps it did and it just got smothered by impenetrable layers of management. Maybe there's another WTF submission in the pile about a longsuffering SAP team (I know, "suffering" and "SAP" together are a redundancy) who had to put up with this cowboy coder who insisted on doing the validation on the front end, and they couldn't get management to see reason, and in the end when they gave up and sent him the validation logic he didn't even bother putting it in...

  • Watson (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    > SAP Augmented Reality.

    I don't even want to think about what that could be. But I assume there's a lot of tripping and falling and getting lost involved.

    SAPAR sounds almost like the next Big Disease Outbreak.

  • Eldelshell (disco) in reply to Watson

    Imagine a world where you're walking down the cubicles isle to the next meeting, wearing your SAP glasses, you watch the HR dept and get a report on employee performance, watch the bathrooms and get a report on lost time on breaks, watch some box and another about client acquisition, all there, slapping you with every step you take and everywhere you look: SAP.

    Man, this would make a great front-page story.

  • Cursorkeys (disco) in reply to Eldelshell

    I read a short sci-fi story once where that was the premise. Everything in businesses was micromanaged by a computer-controlled headset even down to hiring and firing. The story goes on that once global uptake takes off you end up with a nightmare Amazon-warehouses style working environment for everyone. I'll have to remember the author or what it was called, might be some people here that would like it.

    Edit: It even predicted the rise of zero-hour contracts that are now apparently a thing, that's sad (IMHO they should be illegal).

  • Eldelshell (disco) in reply to Cursorkeys
    Cursorkeys:
    zero-hour contracts that are now apparently a thing

    In the UK they are a thing. And as always, I think that something that might work for some people, is being exploited by employers to screw people.

  • Zecc (disco) in reply to Eldelshell
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Medinoc (disco) in reply to DrPepper

    From how I read the article, there was a validation service... The problem was that the service for doing the actual work didn't call it internally, because it relied on the Javascript always calling the validation service first.

    [WebMethod]
    bool Validate(Input input)
    {
        Let's be charitable and assume there was a real validation logic here.
    }
    
    [WebMethod]
    Output DoWork(Input input)
    {
        //What should have been there, but was missing
        //if(!Validate(input))
        //    die("Invalid input.");
    
        Actual work logic
        return output;
    }
    
  • Cursorkeys (disco) in reply to Cursorkeys
    Comment held for moderation.
  • CarrieVS (disco) in reply to calliarcale

    Probably someone tested that it returns true when the code is valid and forgot that the opposite is just as important.

  • Zemm (disco)

    Am I the only one who had to Google for "tchotchke"? Learn a new regional term a day around here! Though I am glad the dictionary is underlining that word as misspelled.

  • Zecc (disco) in reply to Zemm
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Zemm (disco) in reply to Zecc
    Zecc:
    I know I didn't.

    I don't have time to read (and then remember!) every single thread! Plus it's after midnight here and I should be in bed but I'm waiting for this thing to finish... Blah

  • hungrier (disco) in reply to Zemm
    Zemm:
    Am I the only one who had to Google for "tchotchke"?

    I already knew the word, but Remy also provided a helpful definition in the html comments: [image]

    Here's the Remify bookmarklet I use (I know there are a few floating around):

    javascript:(function(){var b=document.getElementById('ArticleFull')||document.getElementsByClassName('ArticleBody')[0]||document.getElementsByClassName('article-body')[0];b.innerHTML=b.innerHTML.replace(/<!\-\-/g,'<span style="color: green;">').replace(/\-\->/g,'');})()
  • boomzilla (disco) in reply to HaximusPrime
    HaximusPrime:
    The tone of the article is that the SAP guys are incredible morons.

    Is there any possibility that this isn't true? I mean, in a technical sense, because obviously they're geniuses at finding a lucrative job where you can't really tell the WTFs from the successes.

  • Zemm (disco) in reply to hungrier
    hungrier:
    but Remy also provided a helpful definition in the html comments:

    So I'm a WTF (not TRWTF) for forgetting to read the comments? I'm usually on mobile but I'm on a real computer at the moment...

  • herby (disco) in reply to CarrieVS

    True, False, and FILE NOT FOUND

  • urkerab (disco) in reply to Zemm
    Zemm:
    So I'm a WTF (not TRWTF) for forgetting to read the comments?
    Worse, these days you have to remember which articles might have comments and check for them, instead of just loading full articles on the front page and getting all the comments in one go.
  • hungrier (disco) in reply to urkerab
    urkerab:
    these days you have to remember which articles might have comments

    It's a pretty easy heuristic, though. If the author is Remy, click the Remify button. Or just click it regardless.

  • accalia (disco) in reply to hungrier
    hungrier:
    Or just click it regardless

    or have greasemonkey click it for you.

  • hungrier (disco) in reply to accalia

    Use a Greasemonkey script to click a javascript bookmarklet? That's right in the uncanny valley of too complicated for simplicity, but too simple for intentional-wtf-complexity.

  • accalia (disco) in reply to hungrier
    hungrier:
    Use a Greasemonkey script to click a javascript bookmarklet? That's right in the uncanny valley of too complicated for simplicity, but too simple for intentional-wtf-complexity.

    conceptually, yes.

    Actually no.

    just have the greasemonkey script run the remify stuff and call it a day.

Leave a comment on “What a SAP”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article