5 ms·
This was addressed in the write up (it’s very long, so missing it is easy). They ran the script against 30 accounts first to verify it worked, and it did, becau
by jsmeaton 4y ago
This was addressed in the write up (it’s very long, so missing it is easy). They ran the script against 30 accounts first to verify it worked, and it did, because the list of 30 ids they tested against came from a different source than the other 750ish. It’s a shitty mistake to make but I’m certain I’ve made similar ones.
- pianoben 4y agoOne of the favorite tricks tricks I've ever seen is how Twilio uses human-readable prefixes[0] on their various identifiers - you will never mistake a device (HSxxxxxxx) for an account (ACxxxxxxxx). It's prevented us (Twilio customer) from making similar mistakes in the past. [0]: https://www.twilio.com/docs/glossary/what-is-a-sid#common-sid-prefixes https://www.twilio.com/docs/glossary/what-is-a-sid#common-si...
- Too 4y agoI like the idea of human readable identifiers. But generally feels like this class of error could be prevented with more type safety in the api and data model? Like deleteDevice(123) and deleteAccount(123), rather than delete(123). This is how REST is designed, the type of resource is already baked into the url.
- tetha 4y agoThose go hand-in-hand. Tell me if deleteDevice(123) or deleteAccount(123) is wrong, opposed to deleteDevice(A123) and deleteAccount(D123).