I’d rather go back to the 90s! The good old times, when devs can lose all that commercial software source code they are developing when the hard drive crashes! And there were no backups! Sorry people who bought licenses! 😂
Narrator: this happened more than once.
Another example of this is what happened with KeePass, then KeePassX, which gave us KeePassXC. Went from single Dev to single Dev to group of devs that were serious about the ecosystem.
I agree, writing meaningless tests helps nobody and just creates extra work everyone. Unit tests should prove functionality and integration tests act as a vise. Much like you said, if a test breaks in that scenario, then you know something in another class has violated that contract. Good tests will have meaningful names and prove functionality, especially in the backend where it is especially important…
You mention (what I would consider) a bad practice of allowing merges without review. While that should be possible on personal projects with only one dev, strict review guidelines should exist so that nobody can just “push to prod”. CICD is your friend - use it so that staging and prod never break. Again, I’m used to working on systems used by scores of millions of users so I appreciate forced automated validation. Nobody likes dumb breaks on a Friday before vacation.
That does sound like a nightmare. I’m assuming you mean failed test when you say “red boy”, and that made me wonder about PR practices. I’m used to a very strict review environment and fairly quick review turnaround or requests to go over the code. I’ve heard horror stories about people not getting PRs reviewed for days or weeks or some people just plain refusing to review code. I work on microservices that are all usually less than 10,000 lines though, not something with over a million lines of legacy code.
Yep. When I was still doing QA, I saw some pretty terrible practices and tested code that barely built. Now as a software engineer, I have no QA and rely heavily on my own testing practices, namely, unit testing first, integration testing and system/e2e testing. I can’t guarantee the code is bug free and there’s parts I know that could be refactored (tech debt), but I know each piece is tested and does what I expect it to. As corny as it sounds, I’m a big fan of TDD. Unit/IT/E2E don’t replace QA in my opinion, but better set QA up to focus on the bugs that matter and not basic stuff.
😂😂 I got downvoted for that. I guess people dislike writing tests.
Am I little naive in wondering how this isn’t caught in unit, integration and E2E tests?
Edit: looks more involved than that, but it forced me to dig into how some of the components are tested. Educational.
I’d be interested to know what “not optimized” means.
Is this something you can point yacy at?
Each fediverse service is different. Matrix has it’s own webfinger configuration, as does diaspora, and mastodon. However, it looks like all ActivityPub services use the same webfinger configuration, which means that this method doesn’t work for donations trying to reference [email protected] for activitypub. I would presume that the first AP service you have listed in the response is going to be the account that each AP service will federate with.
Here’s a little bit about what I’m talking about:
You do it via a webfinger. But the service itself has to request a specific resource in order to route it correctly. For example, mastodon and pixelfed ask for the same resource, so both services will end up getting the same service’s account.
MajorMUD is the only one off the top of my head.