4 ms·

How is the fact that it was a database change and not a binary or a config supposed to make it ok? A change is a change, global changes that go everywhere at on

by usrnm 1y ago

How is the fact that it was a database change and not a binary or a config supposed to make it ok? A change is a change, global changes that go everywhere at once are a recipe for disaster, it doesn't matter what kind of changes we're talking about. This is a second Crowdsrike

fidotron 1y ago
This is the core point. A canary deployment that was not preceded by deploying data that activates the region of the binary in question will prove nothing useful at all, while promoting a false sense of security.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  The root problem is that a dev team didn't appropriately communicate criteria for testing their new feature. Which definitely seems like shortcut 'on to the next thing and ignore QA due diligence.'
  - sagarm 1y ago
    Google does not separate dev and QA in general (I'm sure there are exceptions).
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      That sounds like a conflict of interest in practice. Who's ass is responsible when a dev team starts missing coverage in their tests, like happened here?
      - sagarm 1y ago
        ...the engineering team? I'm confused by this idea that engineering teams are not responsible for software quality. Who else would be? My experience with separate QA teams was not encouraging. They dramatically slowed down releases while failing to catch bugs. Their capability to automate was poor, so they were doing manual testing that provided little coverage especially compared to our comprehensive submit-blocking unit and integration tests.