Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
Get a devDuck
Rubber duck debugging has never been so cute! Get your favorite coding language devDuckBuy Now
Search - "false positives"
Let me tell you a story.
Our company has a homegrown monitoring solution. Keeps track of our deployments and alerts us when something is broken. Really nice for the most part, except a little issue where we get up to 25 alerts PER DAY that our PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT IS DOWN. Including weekends.
With this many false positives, we quickly learn to ignore the alerts and miss real incidents.
So we approached this team, remember its our own tool, and told them about the problem. Turns out it is a known issue. And here's the kicker: they aren't planning on fixing it!
It gets better. Rather than fix this glaring issue, their solution is to make ANOTHER ALERT that lets us know the monitoring is misbehaving.
To recap, we can now expect to get up to 25 false positive alerts per day that our production is down, followed immediately by more alerts that the monitor is broken, which means we can ignore the previous alert.
As our PM said when he heard this: fuck that noise. We are escalating the shit out of this!7
SM = Scrum Master
SM: "Card #130, you added a comment saying you aren't going to do update the report?"
Me:"Yea, I explained why in the comment"
SM: "Product owner wants it."
Me: "Product owner isn't the manager using it. I talked with Steve, he said the data is accurate and they have to go to the database anyway to verify the error. That report has no way of knowing the message logged could be a false positive."
SM: "That's not our job to decide. If the Product Owner wants the feature, we add the feature."
Me: "It is absolutely is our job. Steve is the user of the report. I could really care less what the product owner said. The only reason he created the card was because Steve told him a specific error logged could be a false positive, and only happens, maybe, once a month. I'm not wasting my time, Steve's time, or this project's time on wild goose chases."
SM: "I'll schedule a meeting this afternoon to discuss the issue with the product owner. Don't worry, if you can't figure out how to filter out the false positives, I'll assign the ticket to me."
fracking fracking kiss ass. I swear, if he goes behind my back again ....I... deep breath....ahhh...OK..Thanks devrant. Work place incident diverted.6
Lets play a game of spot the bug...
Too easy you say?
What if I told you that this code was written by a well paid dev over an exceptionally large period of time?
Crazy huh, but that's still nothing. The most ludicrous thing about it - is that you (like me) probably suffer from a mild case of impostor syndrome.
I just ended that suffering. The only thing worse than impostor syndrome is believing you actually know what the fuck your doing. Keep it in check but learn to love it... it's probably the reason you could spot the bug after all.5
PSA: negate your tests and make sure they fail!
I have what I thought was a weird and slightly paranoid habit. When I write tests sometimes just as a sanity check negate the assertion to make sure the test fails and isn't a false positive. Almost always fails as expected.
But not today! Turns out I had forgotten to wrap my equality check in an assertion so it would always pass. It freaks me out to imagine pushing a test that always passes not just because it doesn't do its job, but could also obscure a bug and trick me into thinking it works differently than it does. Broken tests are the worst!
But it pays to be paranoid.
PC-Lint is such a useless piece of shit! Tons of warnings with no actual benefit. The obvious motivation behind this crap was to throw as many warnings as this cheap sucker can even generate with no effort to minimise false positives. Typical snakeoil shit, reminds me of ZoneAlarm back then which reported every ping as "attack" just to fool the clueless into buying. Meanwhile, the actual bugs that sophisticated tools can find pass unnoticed through PC-Lint.
Started Data Science course on big data universuty. The outcomes are heavily dependent on domain experts/stakeholders!!! Since all the answers are false positives and need to decide what make sense with the help of domain experts. And most of the Data scientists are not from programming background, they are domain experts who turned into Data scientists. Thoughts if I should continue with learning big data/data science, knowing that I have knowledge in information retrieval and search engines.
Boss wanted our AES implemented to use an Initialization Vector. I changed the implementation to add an IV and all the tests passed on the first try!
I changed the implementation to fail just to make sure I wasn't getting false positives.
Has anyone else actually *used* mutation testing at all?
Heard a lot about it recently - it seems all the rage amongst the bloggers, but I'm generally always very sceptical of things touted as the "latest hotness" (my thoughts on blockchain for instance are well known.)
So I went ahead and whacked http://pitest.org/ into one of my more recent pet projects to see if it offered anything decent. Surprisingly, it did - in particular it caught a number of places where switching "<" for "<=" and similar had no affect on the pass / fail rate (indicating the tests should be better.) There were a *few* false positives, and some which were borderline useful, but as a whole I'd say it was a worthwhile addition.
Curious as to if anyone else has had the same experience?1
TL;DR: What do you hate about the current interview process for software dev positions?
I have been reading interview related posts on reddit and other places and I have noticed that there is a lot of hate, especially from more senior devs, towards the typical software dev interview pattern i.e. the one focused on algorithms and data structures and I don't understand why. The current methods may be far from ideal but I think they do a good job of eliminating the false-positives. Plus, I can't think of a better alternative. Sure, by using current interview methods some good devs might get rejected because they haven't used/needed/studied many algorithms and data structures after they left college, but for any big company that gets thousands of applications every year, that wouldn't be a big issue compared to the negative impact a false-positive may create. I am still in college so I maybe biased, I would like to hear your thoughts on this.9
Can someone help me? I'm getting this error in VS Code while working on my Unity project. Everything was working fine for last few months. Now I'm getting false positives, because everything works fine in Unity. The problem's gone when I open "ObjectInfo" class file and save it, but I have to do it every time I start VS Code.
The type or namespace name 'ObjectInfo' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) [Assembly-CSharp]
describe logic/algorithm you would use to detect a (presence of) full name in a string. goals: obvious == Most reliable, hardest to fool, least false positives, as generic as possible ( == as few hardcoded data as possible)12