991
Bug Fixing
(programming.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
991 points (98.2% liked)
Programmer Humor
18388 readers
880 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, but sometimes it works.
It's even worse then: that means it's probably a race condition and do you really want to run the risk of having it randomly fail in Production or during an important presentation? Also race conditions generally are way harder to figure out and fix that the more "reliable" kind of bug.
Or it was an issue with code generation, or something in the environment changed.
Mmm, race conditions, just like mama used to make.
There was that kind of bug in Linux and a person restarted it idk how much (iirc around 2k times) just to debug it.
This is 100% valid when dealing with code generation sometimes and I hate it
Legit happens without a race condition if you’ve improperly linked libraries that need to be built in a specific order. I’ve seen more than one solution that needed to be run multiple times, or built project by project, in order to work.
Isn't that the definition of a race condition, though? In this case, the builds are racing and your success is tied to the builds happening to happen at the right times.
Or do you mean "builds 1 and 2 kick off at the same time, but build 1 fails unless build 2 is done. If you run it twice, build 2 does "no change" and you're fine"?
Then that's legit.
Yup, it’s that second one. 0% chance of success until all dependencies are built, then the final run has a 100% chance to work.
We call this sort of test "fuzzy". If it's really bad they call it by my own personal identifier of "unstable".