3 ms·

In this case it was code to generate an "oauth2 code_challenge" and the correctly URLEncode it. Instead of using replaceAll the example used replace. So only

In this case it was code to generate an "oauth2 code_challenge" and the correctly URLEncode it. Instead of using replaceAll the example used replace. So only the first character in the string was getting converted. When pressed the developer said they thought their code was "too fast for the oauth server" and that's why it failed about 25% of the time. The level of disappointment I had when I found the problem was enough to be memorable, but to find the post he flat out copied on stack overflow, along with a comment below it highlighting the bug AND the fix, nearly brought be to apoplexy.

eddythompson80 2y ago
To me “.replace()” vs “.replaceAll()” (in JS at least) is a perfect example to evaluate a developer on. Any JS developer would know that replace()’s main gotcha is that it’s not replaceAll(). I used C# professionally for years before using JS. And “.Replace()” in C# works the same way “.replaceAll()” does in JS. It was one of the first things I learned about JS and how I needed to reevaluate all my code in JS. In interviews, I’d often ask the interviewee “what is your background” and “do you know that in JS .replace() is unlike .replace() in Java or .Replace() in .NET”. That statement should make perfect sense to any developer who realizes the word “replace” is somewhat ambiguous. I would always argue that the behavior of Java and .NET is the right behavior, but it’s an ambiguous word nonetheless.