4 ms·

What about auto-saving recovering data? It really depends upon the language and environment used. I work with C (almost legacy code at this point), and if the

by spc476 10y ago

What about auto-saving recovering data? It really depends upon the language and environment used. I work with C (almost legacy code at this point), and if the program generates a segfault, there is no way to safely store any data (for all I know, it could have been trying to auto-save recovery data when it happened). About the best I can hope for is that it shows itself during testing but hey, things slip into production (last time that happened in an asynchronous, event driven C program, the programmer maintaining the code violated an unstated assumption by the initial developer (who was no longer with the company) and program go boom in production). At that point, the program is automatically restarted, and I get to pour through a core dump to figure out the problem. I'm not a fan of defensive programming as it can hide an obvious bug for a long time (I consider it a Good Thing that the program crashed otherwise we might have gone months, or even years, with noticing the actual bug). Logging is an art. Too little, and it's hard to diagnose. Too much and it's hard to slog through. There's also the possibility that you don't log the right information. I've had to go back and amend logging statements when something didn't parse right (okay, what are our customers sending us now? Oh nice! The logs don't show the data that didn't parse---the things you don't think about when coding). And then there are the monumental screw-ups that no one foresaw the consequences of. Again, at work, we receive messages on service S, which transforms and forwards the request to service T, which queries service E. T also sends continuous queries (a fixed query we aren't charged for [1]) to E to make sure it's up. Someone, somewhere, removed the fixed query from E. When the fixed query to E returned "not found," the code in T was written in such a way that failed to distinguish "not found" with "timedout" (because that fixed query should never have been deleted, right?) and thus, T shut down (because it had nothing to query), which in turn shut down S (because it had nothing to send the data to), which in turn meant many people were called ... Then there was the routing error which caused our network traffic to be three times higher than expected and misrouted UDP replies ... Error handling and reporting is hard. Maybe not cache invalidation and naming things hard, but hard none-the-less. [1] Enterprise system here.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Kristine1975 10y ago
>and if the program generates a segfault, there is no way to safely store any data FWIW Inkscape tries to save the current document to (IIRC) the user's home directory, displays a message to tell the user about it and quits.
MaulingMonkey 10y ago
> I'm not a fan of defensive programming as it can hide an obvious bug for a long time (I consider it a Good Thing that the program crashed otherwise we might have gone months, or even years, with noticing the actual bug). I've had segfaults "hidden" for a long time because my artist coworkers weren't reporting crashes in their tools. They assumed a 5 minute fix was something really complicated. Non-defensive programming is no panacea here. Worse, non-defensive programming often meant crashes well after the initial problem anyways, when all sane context was lost. My takeaway here is that I need to automatically collect crashes - and other failures - instead of relying on end users to report the problem. This is entirely compatible with defensive programming - right now I'm looking at sentry.io and it's competitors (and what I might consider rolling myself) to hook up as a reporting back end for yet another assertion library (since none of them bother with C++ bindings.) On a previous codebase, we had an assert-ish macro: ..._CHECKFAIL( precondition, description, onPreconditionFailed ); Which let code like this (to invent a very bad example) not fatally crash: ..._CHECKFAIL( texture, "Corrupt or missing texture - failed to load [" << texturePath << "]", return PlaceholderTexture() ); return texture; Instead of giving me a crash deep in my rendering pipeline minutes after loading with no context as to what texture might be missing. Make it annoying as a crash in your internal builds and it will be triaged as a crash. Or even more severely, possibly, if simply hitting the assert automatically opens a bug in your DB and assigns your leads/managers to triage it and CCs QA, whoever committed last, and everyone who reviewed last commit ;) > Logging is an art. You're right, and it's hard. However. It's very easy to do better than not logging at all. And I think something similar applies to defensive programming. You want null to crash your program? Do so explicitly, maybe with an error message describing what assumption was violated, preferably in release too instead of adding a possible security vulnerability to your codebase: http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know_14.html http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-... . Basically, always enabled fatal asserts. This might even be a bit easier than logging - it's hard to pack too much information into a fatal assert. After all, there's only going to be one of them per run.
- zeeg 10y ago
  Please, please, don't roll your own. It seems like an easy problem at a glance, but its far from it. The more fragmentation in these communities the worse off we all are. Sentry's totally open source, and we have generous free tiers on the hosted platform. Happy to talk more about this in detail, but if there's things you dont feel are being solved let us know.
visionscaper 10y ago
> I'm not a fan of defensive programming as it can hide an obvious bug for a long time (I consider it a Good Thing that the program crashed otherwise we might have gone months, or even years, with noticing the actual bug). Not when you do it the right way! You should only mitigate unexpected situations if you also log it, monitor it and handle it with error callback etc. Also see my other comment in this thread : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12871541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12871541

by spc476 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Kristine1975 10y ago

>and if the program generates a segfault, there is no way to safely store any data FWIW Inkscape tries to save the current document to (IIRC) the user's home directory, displays a message to tell the user about it and quits.

MaulingMonkey 10y ago

> I'm not a fan of defensive programming as it can hide an obvious bug for a long time (I consider it a Good Thing that the program crashed otherwise we might have gone months, or even years, with noticing the actual bug). I've had segfaults "hidden" for a long time because my artist coworkers weren't reporting crashes in their tools. They assumed a 5 minute fix was something really complicated. Non-defensive programming is no panacea here. Worse, non-defensive programming often meant crashes well after the initial problem anyways, when all sane context was lost. My takeaway here is that I need to automatically collect crashes - and other failures - instead of relying on end users to report the problem. This is entirely compatible with defensive programming - right now I'm looking at sentry.io and it's competitors (and what I might consider rolling myself) to hook up as a reporting back end for yet another assertion library (since none of them bother with C++ bindings.) On a previous codebase, we had an assert-ish macro: ..._CHECKFAIL( precondition, description, onPreconditionFailed ); Which let code like this (to invent a very bad example) not fatally crash: ..._CHECKFAIL( texture, "Corrupt or missing texture - failed to load [" << texturePath << "]", return PlaceholderTexture() ); return texture; Instead of giving me a crash deep in my rendering pipeline minutes after loading with no context as to what texture might be missing. Make it annoying as a crash in your internal builds and it will be triaged as a crash. Or even more severely, possibly, if simply hitting the assert automatically opens a bug in your DB and assigns your leads/managers to triage it and CCs QA, whoever committed last, and everyone who reviewed last commit ;) > Logging is an art. You're right, and it's hard. However. It's very easy to do better than not logging at all. And I think something similar applies to defensive programming. You want null to crash your program? Do so explicitly, maybe with an error message describing what assumption was violated, preferably in release too instead of adding a possible security vulnerability to your codebase: http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know_14.html http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-... . Basically, always enabled fatal asserts. This might even be a bit easier than logging - it's hard to pack too much information into a fatal assert. After all, there's only going to be one of them per run.

zeeg 10y ago
Please, please, don't roll your own. It seems like an easy problem at a glance, but its far from it. The more fragmentation in these communities the worse off we all are. Sentry's totally open source, and we have generous free tiers on the hosted platform. Happy to talk more about this in detail, but if there's things you dont feel are being solved let us know.

visionscaper 10y ago

> I'm not a fan of defensive programming as it can hide an obvious bug for a long time (I consider it a Good Thing that the program crashed otherwise we might have gone months, or even years, with noticing the actual bug). Not when you do it the right way! You should only mitigate unexpected situations if you also log it, monitor it and handle it with error callback etc. Also see my other comment in this thread : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12871541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12871541