6 ms·

The point of a method name like "I_suck_and_..." is to discourage misusage of the API,or at least provoke conscious thought about whether it's a good choice to

The point of a method name like "I_suck_and_..." is to discourage misusage of the API,or at least provoke conscious thought about whether it's a good choice to make. That the name adds friction is an intended feature, not a bug. Writing or seeing "I_suck_" is obviously going to cause you to stop and think about it. I think there's some reasonable contention about whether "I_suck" is professional, though, sure.

tomlockwood 4y ago
If the API can be misused I think the snarky code purity response here might be to say the API is flawed, and the underlying mechanism that requires "misuse" ought to be fixed. Also another problem is if the API can't sufficiently WARN developers when they're doing something dangerous. I think we all know there are already ways of doing this.
- rgoulter 4y ago
  > ... I think the snarky code purity response here ... I think if we can agree "taking on tech debt can be a good approach" and has dignity, we also have to agree that wishing for code without tech debt is also dignified. :o) Which is perhaps why the "I_suck_and" gets removed from this property. > If the API can be misused I think ... the API is flawed, and the underlying mechanism that requires "misuse" ought to be fixed. Which in this case would mean "minitest should only be able to run tests in random order". -- I think having an (inconvenient) option as a concession is a reasonable trade off.
  - tomlockwood 4y ago
    > we also have to agree that wishing for code without tech debt is also dignified. I think then my question is how to achieve this wish given the realities of the production of working code as demanded by business. Is this really a realistic wish? I am yet to work for a company that had code and didn't have technical debt. I am yet to hear of such a company. > I think having an (inconvenient) option as a concession is a reasonable trade off. Exactly. Perhaps these specific minitest devs ought to have called their library "i_suck_and_wrote_a_testing_framework_that_allows_writing_tests_that_are_order_dependent_and_also_its_called_minitest". :D
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      I find it completely unreasonable that you would blame the testing framework here. No, that line does not make sense. It does the opposite of make sense: they made a very reasonable concession and you want to call that sucking? No. While code that needs this feature really does suck.
      - tomlockwood 4y ago
        Hey! I guess they should have just written code that didn't necessitate the need for this method, in the first place! Oh well, everyone has their flaws! The question is if they need to write "I_Suck" all the time as penitence.
        djur 4y ago
        What necessitated implementing the method was that _other people_ were saying that random test order didn't work with their existing test suites (written for Test::Unit). Not only did the minitest author compromise and add this method for people unable or unwilling to fix their test suites, but he even wrote minitest-bisect to help debug ordering issues. I think this is more than enough from someone working as a volunteer on an open source project.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > Hey! I guess they should have just written code that didn't necessitate the need for this method, in the first place! They did! It's not their code that necessitates it. The only way you can say they necessitated it is by omission, as in "they didn't write the code to fill this need people have, therefore the need went unmet". But that would be nonsense because seven billion people are guilty of the same crime. No, it's the people that wrote the code under test that necessitated the need. And those people are not the minitest authors.
        tomlockwood 4y ago
        I think I get what you're saying! It's fine to write code that allows for and enables bad practices when it suits a pragmatic need. We therefore totally agree.
  - djur 4y ago
    The context here is that Ryan Davis added test order randomization as a default feature to minitest, which was meant to be a mostly-compatible drop-in replacement for the old Test::Unit. Some people complained a lot about this and requested a flag to turn it off. I remember this being hashed out over some time on the ruby-talk mailing list: https://rubytalk.org/t/minitest-randomization/60387/3 https://rubytalk.org/t/minitest-randomization/60387/3 I think the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back was that Rails had order-dependent tests at the time. So Ryan added the flag, with his reluctance reflected by the mildly insulting name and doc comment.
  - ulizzle 4y ago
    Wishing for code w/out tech debt is naive; not dignified. It's just the lesser of whatever two evils were going on at the time the code was written.
kelnos 4y ago
There's a difference between "provoke" and "belittle", though. I don't think I would feel too bad about myself if I had to call a method starting with "i_suck_", but I can understand and sympathize with people for whom having to type in that method name would strike right at their impostor syndrome. The question is, of course: should we cater to those latter people? The author of this Ruby code clearly thinks not (or didn't think about it at all). I think that we (or at least I) should.
- Dudeman112 4y ago
  If someone would feel bad for writing i_suck as part of a method call... I don't think they'll last in the real world anyway What's the upper bound on ego fragility that we ought to consider?
  - tomlockwood 4y ago
    The same could absolutely be said of people who get a little emotional when they are forced to write a method allowing tests to run in order.
    - Dudeman112 4y ago
      I agree I'm not sure if it's always been there and I just didn't notice it, but it looks like there's been an increase of people who have an ego/spine that's as solid as your average jellyfish How the heck do these people go about life if even small things like that are sufficient to faze them? Do they just have a breakdown or shut down if anything actually taxing happens?

tomlockwood 4y ago

If the API can be misused I think the snarky code purity response here might be to say the API is flawed, and the underlying mechanism that requires "misuse" ought to be fixed. Also another problem is if the API can't sufficiently WARN developers when they're doing something dangerous. I think we all know there are already ways of doing this.

rgoulter 4y ago
> ... I think the snarky code purity response here ... I think if we can agree "taking on tech debt can be a good approach" and has dignity, we also have to agree that wishing for code without tech debt is also dignified. :o) Which is perhaps why the "I_suck_and" gets removed from this property. > If the API can be misused I think ... the API is flawed, and the underlying mechanism that requires "misuse" ought to be fixed. Which in this case would mean "minitest should only be able to run tests in random order". -- I think having an (inconvenient) option as a concession is a reasonable trade off.
- tomlockwood 4y ago
  > we also have to agree that wishing for code without tech debt is also dignified. I think then my question is how to achieve this wish given the realities of the production of working code as demanded by business. Is this really a realistic wish? I am yet to work for a company that had code and didn't have technical debt. I am yet to hear of such a company. > I think having an (inconvenient) option as a concession is a reasonable trade off. Exactly. Perhaps these specific minitest devs ought to have called their library "i_suck_and_wrote_a_testing_framework_that_allows_writing_tests_that_are_order_dependent_and_also_its_called_minitest". :D
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    I find it completely unreasonable that you would blame the testing framework here. No, that line does not make sense. It does the opposite of make sense: they made a very reasonable concession and you want to call that sucking? No. While code that needs this feature really does suck.
    - tomlockwood 4y ago
      Hey! I guess they should have just written code that didn't necessitate the need for this method, in the first place! Oh well, everyone has their flaws! The question is if they need to write "I_Suck" all the time as penitence.
      - djur 4y ago
        What necessitated implementing the method was that _other people_ were saying that random test order didn't work with their existing test suites (written for Test::Unit). Not only did the minitest author compromise and add this method for people unable or unwilling to fix their test suites, but he even wrote minitest-bisect to help debug ordering issues. I think this is more than enough from someone working as a volunteer on an open source project.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > Hey! I guess they should have just written code that didn't necessitate the need for this method, in the first place! They did! It's not their code that necessitates it. The only way you can say they necessitated it is by omission, as in "they didn't write the code to fill this need people have, therefore the need went unmet". But that would be nonsense because seven billion people are guilty of the same crime. No, it's the people that wrote the code under test that necessitated the need. And those people are not the minitest authors.
        tomlockwood 4y ago
        I think I get what you're saying! It's fine to write code that allows for and enables bad practices when it suits a pragmatic need. We therefore totally agree.
- djur 4y ago
  The context here is that Ryan Davis added test order randomization as a default feature to minitest, which was meant to be a mostly-compatible drop-in replacement for the old Test::Unit. Some people complained a lot about this and requested a flag to turn it off. I remember this being hashed out over some time on the ruby-talk mailing list: https://rubytalk.org/t/minitest-randomization/60387/3 https://rubytalk.org/t/minitest-randomization/60387/3 I think the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back was that Rails had order-dependent tests at the time. So Ryan added the flag, with his reluctance reflected by the mildly insulting name and doc comment.
- ulizzle 4y ago
  Wishing for code w/out tech debt is naive; not dignified. It's just the lesser of whatever two evils were going on at the time the code was written.

kelnos 4y ago

There's a difference between "provoke" and "belittle", though. I don't think I would feel too bad about myself if I had to call a method starting with "i_suck_", but I can understand and sympathize with people for whom having to type in that method name would strike right at their impostor syndrome. The question is, of course: should we cater to those latter people? The author of this Ruby code clearly thinks not (or didn't think about it at all). I think that we (or at least I) should.

Dudeman112 4y ago
If someone would feel bad for writing i_suck as part of a method call... I don't think they'll last in the real world anyway What's the upper bound on ego fragility that we ought to consider?
- tomlockwood 4y ago
  The same could absolutely be said of people who get a little emotional when they are forced to write a method allowing tests to run in order.
  - Dudeman112 4y ago
    I agree I'm not sure if it's always been there and I just didn't notice it, but it looks like there's been an increase of people who have an ego/spine that's as solid as your average jellyfish How the heck do these people go about life if even small things like that are sufficient to faze them? Do they just have a breakdown or shut down if anything actually taxing happens?