3 ms·

There absolutely is a test environment, it was absolutely reviewed and Google has absolutely spent Moon-landing money on testing and in particular static analys

There absolutely is a test environment, it was absolutely reviewed and Google has absolutely spent Moon-landing money on testing and in particular static analysis.

polotics 1y ago
ok so what gives then?
fidotron 1y ago
Moon landing money on static analysis that failed to identify the existence of a completely untested code path? Or even to shake this out with random data generation? This is a dumbfounding level of mistake for an organization such as Google.
- Unroasted6154 1y ago
  What makes you think it was completely untested? The condition that triggered the null pointer exception was obviously not tested, but it doesn't mean it didn't have tests or even 100% unit test coverage for the coverage tools. In addition it looks like the code was not ready for production and the mistake was not gating it behind a feature flag. It didn't go through the normal release process.
  - piva00 1y ago
    If Google spent Moon-landing level of money in their quality/deployment infrastructure I expect a much better coverage checker than "100% unit tested", they are famous for having a whole fuzzing infrastructure, coverage analysers for more complex interplay of logic is something I use daily in a non-Google levels of spending (even though still a big enough corporation) which often reminds me that I forgot to write a functional test to cover a potential orchestration issue. I don't think "completely untested" is correct but tested way below expectations for such structural piece of code is a lesson they should learn, it does look like an amateur-hour mistake.
    - Unroasted6154 1y ago
      The main issues to me seem to be that the code was not gated by a flag when it was not ready to be used, thus skipping a lot of the testing / release qualification.
NeutralWanted 1y ago
[dead]

3 ms·

There absolutely is a test environment, it was absolutely reviewed and Google has absolutely spent Moon-landing money on testing and in particular static analys

by bananapub 1y ago

There absolutely is a test environment, it was absolutely reviewed and Google has absolutely spent Moon-landing money on testing and in particular static analysis.

polotics 1y ago
ok so what gives then?
fidotron 1y ago
Moon landing money on static analysis that failed to identify the existence of a completely untested code path? Or even to shake this out with random data generation? This is a dumbfounding level of mistake for an organization such as Google.
- Unroasted6154 1y ago
  What makes you think it was completely untested? The condition that triggered the null pointer exception was obviously not tested, but it doesn't mean it didn't have tests or even 100% unit test coverage for the coverage tools. In addition it looks like the code was not ready for production and the mistake was not gating it behind a feature flag. It didn't go through the normal release process.
  - piva00 1y ago
    If Google spent Moon-landing level of money in their quality/deployment infrastructure I expect a much better coverage checker than "100% unit tested", they are famous for having a whole fuzzing infrastructure, coverage analysers for more complex interplay of logic is something I use daily in a non-Google levels of spending (even though still a big enough corporation) which often reminds me that I forgot to write a functional test to cover a potential orchestration issue. I don't think "completely untested" is correct but tested way below expectations for such structural piece of code is a lesson they should learn, it does look like an amateur-hour mistake.
    - Unroasted6154 1y ago
      The main issues to me seem to be that the code was not gated by a flag when it was not ready to be used, thus skipping a lot of the testing / release qualification.
NeutralWanted 1y ago
[dead]