3 ms·

They bypassed the tests and staged deployment, because their previous update looked good. Ha. What if they implemented a release process, and follow it? Like

by rurban 2y ago

They bypassed the tests and staged deployment, because their previous update looked good. Ha. What if they implemented a release process, and follow it? Like everyone else does. Hackers at the workplace, sigh.

CommanderData 2y ago
They know better obviously, transcending process and bureaucracy.
- rurban 2y ago
  Same thing happened with Falcon on Debian before. Later they admitted that they didn't test some platforms they were releasing. Never heard of Docker? How can you keep on with such a Q&R manager? He'll cost them billions
  - shepherdjerred 2y ago
    Docker wouldn't help with testing kernel modules. You'd need a VM.
fulafel 2y ago
Also it must have been a manual testing effort, otherwise there would be no motive to skip it. IOW, missing test automation.
throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
Where do you see that, it looks like there was a bug in the template tester? Or you mean the manual tests?
- kasabali 2y ago
  > Based on the testing performed before the initial deployment of the Template Type (on March 05, 2024), trust in the checks performed in the Content Validator, and previous successful IPC Template Instance deployments, these instances were deployed into production.
  - wasyl 2y ago
    I don't read it as _bypassing tests_. They have tested the interpreter (`template type`) when it was first released, and they have _validated_ the new template instance (via `content validator`) and assumed this is enough, because it was enough in the past. None of the steps in the usual process were bypassed, and everything was done by the (their) book. But it looks to me there's no integration test in the process at all. They're effectively unit testing the interpreter (template type), unit testing (validating) the "code" (template instance), but their testing strategy never actually runs the code on the interpreter (or, executes the template instance against the template type).
    - kasabali 2y ago
      > I don't read it as _bypassing tests_. You can't bypass the tests if you don't have them? <insert meme here> They don't even bother to do the most simple smoke test ever of running their software on a vanilla configuration and remind me again because I have trouble understanding what we're exactly trying to argue here.
yuliyp 2y ago
This feels natural, though: the first time you do something you do it 10x more slowly because there's a lot more risk. Continuing to do things like that forever isn't realistic. Complacency is a double-edged sword: sometimes it gets us to avoid wasting time and energy on needless worry (the first time someone drives a car they go 5 mph and brake at anything surprising), sometimes it gets us to be too reckless (drivers forgetting to check blind spots or driving at dangerous speeds).

by rurban 2y ago

CommanderData 2y ago

They know better obviously, transcending process and bureaucracy.

rurban 2y ago
Same thing happened with Falcon on Debian before. Later they admitted that they didn't test some platforms they were releasing. Never heard of Docker? How can you keep on with such a Q&R manager? He'll cost them billions
- shepherdjerred 2y ago
  Docker wouldn't help with testing kernel modules. You'd need a VM.

fulafel 2y ago

Also it must have been a manual testing effort, otherwise there would be no motive to skip it. IOW, missing test automation.

throwaway7ahgb 2y ago

Where do you see that, it looks like there was a bug in the template tester? Or you mean the manual tests?

kasabali 2y ago
> Based on the testing performed before the initial deployment of the Template Type (on March 05, 2024), trust in the checks performed in the Content Validator, and previous successful IPC Template Instance deployments, these instances were deployed into production.
- wasyl 2y ago
  I don't read it as _bypassing tests_. They have tested the interpreter (`template type`) when it was first released, and they have _validated_ the new template instance (via `content validator`) and assumed this is enough, because it was enough in the past. None of the steps in the usual process were bypassed, and everything was done by the (their) book. But it looks to me there's no integration test in the process at all. They're effectively unit testing the interpreter (template type), unit testing (validating) the "code" (template instance), but their testing strategy never actually runs the code on the interpreter (or, executes the template instance against the template type).
  - kasabali 2y ago
    > I don't read it as _bypassing tests_. You can't bypass the tests if you don't have them? <insert meme here> They don't even bother to do the most simple smoke test ever of running their software on a vanilla configuration and remind me again because I have trouble understanding what we're exactly trying to argue here.

yuliyp 2y ago

This feels natural, though: the first time you do something you do it 10x more slowly because there's a lot more risk. Continuing to do things like that forever isn't realistic. Complacency is a double-edged sword: sometimes it gets us to avoid wasting time and energy on needless worry (the first time someone drives a car they go 5 mph and brake at anything surprising), sometimes it gets us to be too reckless (drivers forgetting to check blind spots or driving at dangerous speeds).