Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple APILearn More
Search - "branching"
So my department is "integrating CI/CD"
Right now, there's a very anti-automation culture in the deployment process, and out of our many applications, almost none have automated testing. And my groups is the only one that uses feature branching - one of the few groups that uses branching at all beyond "master, dev"
So yeah... You could see how this is already ENTIRELY fucked from the very beginning.
First thing they want to do is add better support for a process... Which goes directly against CI/CD.
The process is that to deploy to production (even after it is manually approved by manager), someone in another department needs to press a button to manually deploy. This, as far as I can tell, is for business rule reasons rather than technical ones.
They want us to improve that (the system will stay exactly the same with some streamlined options for said button pressers)
I'm absolutely astounded at the way our management wants to do something but goes in exactly the opposite direction. It's like the found an article of what CI/CD was and then took notes on exactly what not to do.25
Bro every time this guy wants to create a PR, rather than branching off another branch and raising a PR to get it merged back in, this dude creates a fork and then makes a PR to merge the fork back in.
Holy. Fuck. Please don’t do this. It makes checking out your “branch” a massive pain in the ass. Plus, it’s totally unnecessary, and I can’t even check it out to begin with because your forked repo is fucking private you stooge. If we were in completely different orgs or doing open source I’d understand a fork. Not if you’re sitting right fucking next to me!!!!!11116
Today on "How the Fuck is Python a Real Language?": Lambda functions and other dumb Python syntax.
Lambda functions are generally passed as callbacks, e.g. "myFunc(a, b, lambda c, d: c + d)". Note that the comma between c and d is somehow on a completely different level than the comma between a and b, even though they're both within the same brackets, because instead of using something like, say, universally agreed-upon grouping symbols to visually group the lambda function arguments together, Python groups them using a reserved keyword on one end, and two little dots on the other end. Like yeah, that's easy to notice among 10 other variable and argument names. But Python couldn't really do any better, because "myFunc(a, b, (c, d): c + d)" would be even less readable and prone to typos given how fucked up Python's use of brackets already is.
And while I'm on the topic of dumb Python syntax, let's look at the switch, um, match statements. For a long time, people behind Python argued that a bunch of elif statements with the same fucking conditions (e.g. x == 1, x == 2, x == 3, ...) are more readable than a standard switch statement, but then in Python 3.10 (released only 1 year ago), they finally came to their senses and added match and case keywords to implement pattern matching. Except they managed to fuck up yet again; instead of a normal "default:" statement, the default statement is denoted by "case _:". Because somehow, everywhere else in the code _ behaves as a normal variable name, but in match statement it instead means "ignore the value in this place". For example, "match myVar:" and "case [first, *rest]:" will behave exactly like "[first, *rest] = myVar" as long as myVar is a list with one or more elements, but "case [_, *rest]:" won't assign the first element from the list to anything, even though "[_, *rest] = myVar" will assign it to _. Because fuck consistency, that's why.
And why the fuck is there no fallthrough? Wouldn't it make perfect sense to write
case ('rgb', r, g, b):
case ('argb', _, r, g, b):
case ('rgba', r, g, b, _):
case ('bgr', b, g, r):
case ('abgr', _, b, g, r):
case ('bgra', b, g, r, _):
and then, you know, handle r, g, and b values in the same fucking block of code? Pretty sure that would be more readable than having to write "handeRGB(r, g, b)" 6 fucking times depending on the input format. Oh, and never mind that Python already has a "break" keyword.
Speaking of the "break" keyword, if you try to use it outside of a loop, you get an error "'break' outside loop". However, there's also the "continue" keyword, and if you try to use it outside of a loop, you get an error "'continue' not properly in loop". Why the fuck are there two completely different error messages for that? Does it mean there exists some weird improper syntax to use "continue" inside of a loop? Or is it just another inconsistent Python bullshit where until Python 3.8 you couldn't use "continue" inside the "finally:" block (but you could always use "break", even though it does essentially the same thing, just branching to a different point).19
i was hired to join a team of old devs (40+) in an unnamed European country "yay goodbye 3rd world it's time to enjoy the quality of life" assist with enhancing already existing software and creating new solutions.
prior to my arrival most things were slow and super buggy, looking at the code base it shouldn't be a surprise, amateur hour everyone, logic implemented that is not needed, comment driven development, last time code review was done back in 1996. lots of anti patterns.
i swear there is a for loop that does nothing but it loops through a 100+ elements list, trunk based development with tfs since git is "not really needed"
test projects are not there.
>enter me an educated fool, with genuine passion for the craft and somehow a decent amount of knowledge.
>spent the last year fixing stuff educating people on principles and qualities.
> countless hours of training and explaining. team is showing cooperation, a new requirement comes in to develop with react.
> tear my ass creating reusable shit and self explanatory code with proper naming etc using git with feature branching, monday is first deployment day.
> today a colleague was working on an item submit a pull request and self approve it
> look at the code..... WTF the dumb fuck copied and pasted the whole code from different kendo components but somehow managed to refractor the name to test component, commented out all the code that he didn't use did the api call directly from the component, has 2 useeffects that depends on the a fucking text box changes for no reason, no redux implementation, the acceptance criteria is not achieved, and it doesn't work it just look right.
> first world country shit cannot scold, cannot complain, lead by example.
>asked him why you did this, the response was yeah probably i shouldn't have done that, i really didn't understand anything in the training but didn't want to waste time!!!!
> rest of the team created a different styled disaster with different flavors they don't even name their shit the same way.
fellow developers I'm stuck in a spaceship with a bunch of imposters, seriously i never cried in my entire life now I'm teary and on the verge of a break down.
talk with management "improving needs time" and offers me to join a yoga session to release the stress as if reaching nirvana would deliver shit on monday.
i really don't know what do is this a rant, is this a cry for help, I'm not sure, any advice is welcomed.7
I'm trying really hard not to be sensitive, but my manager is making it difficult with their "constructive criticisms" ...
Just finished up a call with them. And I'm so tired. I'm not even angry or upset, I just feel so tired of their bullshit.
I set up a meeting as a courtesy to get them up to date on all the code changes I made. Last night I stayed up late to try and get things in before the deadline and this morning just killed me when they say.
"I don't think I should have given you this."
"I was right, you weren't ready to start doing this."
(Then don't even bother giving me anymore tasks then, I don't fucking care.)
"you clearly don't understand how branches work"
(Absolutely fucking false, I fixed that shit and am very familiar with how to understand the structure of the fucking repo)
"you are rushing and I don't need you messing up the website"
(I'm being proactive you twat, not rushing, making it very difficult for me to do the work and being productive)
Like seriously bro! Don't fucking patronize me for the work I was trying to get out. And trust me this fucking meeting is done in order to get ahead of potential issues, not a time to be condescending of my skills or lack there-of as you seem to so keenly think.
If you had this much doubt about my abilities then why give me the fucking Sr. title? Fucking trust that I'm being honest, and I'm trying to get us to a good spot, not fucking sabotage the company. God fucking damn.6
what a garbage day. i've spent almost the whole day merging shit and the rest was meetings (also talking about how i merge shit).
dear fucked up branching strategy, when I look at the torn beauty of your mutated stream graph that carries the taint of corruption, depictions of feculent gnarlmaws come to my mind:
"These disgusting trees ring with the sorrowful tolling of entropic chimes, belch clouds of daemonic spores, and shed rot-wet blossom to carpet the maggot-churned earth beneath their boughs. The few stunted branches that grow from it feature dismal bells, tentacles and more pustulent boils."6
Alright, my very first post here was about this project and I am thinking it out loud again.
I see a problem and I am struggling to find a solution.
Now what I am thinking of is to articulate the problem well and state WHY I believe it needs to be solved. There are some reasons which must be presented in a capitalist way.
Furthermore, I am thinking of doing a market research to understand various demographics, validate the idea, and figure out the product-market fit.
Now, this qualitative research and quantitative data will help me decide whether it is worth putting in the efforts to solve the problem or not.
And since, we have an MVP already (funnily yes, we built it before all of the above), that will help me validate the tangible solution.
Once we get a confidence boost, then it will be time to get that single transaction which has net positive cash flow.
Start scaling to 'next billion users', so a billion transaction with net positive cash flow.
I won't be branching out into multiple verticals before be able to sustainably scale the core USP.
And while the second half sounds like, 'I have a million dollar idea', I am trying to be more and more realistic and rationale instead of falling in love with my idea.
I don't even have an idea (read solution) to fall in love with. Rather I have a problem that is bothering me.
So, yes, I am continuing this journey to solve the problem which started in second year of my hostel room and has evolved over 10 years.
When elements of an union are distinguished by a boolean, VSCode's Typescript plugin can only do type elimination if I branch by "== true" and not if I just branch by the boolean.
This is because Typescript treats booleans as an union of the constants "true" and "false", and compile-time elimination can only be done if I use syntax that makes sense with unions. Logical evaluation, for some reason, doesn't.
The fact that this issue can even appear is deeply concerning.1