3 ms·
The two comments you've quoted are literally the only comments that indicate hacks or broken things in the entire HTML source of the linked page. There are othe
by XCabbage 8y ago
The two comments you've quoted are literally the only comments that indicate hacks or broken things in the entire HTML source of the linked page. There are other comments, but they are innocuous descriptive comments and not indications of problems - things like:
<!-- Adobe Analytics script (2 of 2) -->
Saying it is "full of" comments "like" the ones you've quoted is just plain not true.
- sefrost 8y agoThe assets have many lines of commented out code and comments like the ones I mentioned: https://apply.army.mod.uk/Content/Scripts/custom/RoleFinder.js https://apply.army.mod.uk/Content/Scripts/custom/RoleFinder.... I'm not calling out the developers, but I would suggest many people here would not allow chunks of commented out code in the projects they work on. It suggests poor use of source control, meaning the site won't be maintainable and will have to be replaced. Of course it's likely this is because of conditions placed on the developers by their managers, those are the people I'm taking issue with here. I'm just miffed off that as a UK taxpayer we're on the hook for this. Again. If I'd paid for this site personally I'd be upset.
- XCabbage 8y agoEep. I agree that that's a bad look. I also like the way that in one event handler in that file they check for the existence of stopImmediatePropagation before calling it and if it's not there they fall back `cancelBubble = true` to support old IE versions, but that in another spot they happily call stopImmediatePropagation() without any check. I'm not certain, but that certainly looks wrong; it seems like they'd've been better served by a polyfill.