When The Test Is The Problem, Not Your Code

Content Jeez, did you change my project again? Erm I'lI revert it immediatly, and you'd better not edit my code again! Of course you did! Since your last commit, there are errors everywhere But.. What was the commit? I call it the "eye-opener commit" A simple error reporting(E ALL) CommitStrip.com

Content Hacker Scripts Based on a true story: xxx: OK, so, our build engineer has left for another company. The dude was literally living inside the terminal. You know, that type of a guy who loves Vim, creates diagrams in Dot and writes wiki-posts in Markdown... If something - anything requires more than 90 seconds of his time, he writes a script to automate that. xxx: So we're sitting here, looking through his, uhm, "legacy" xxx: You're gonna love this xxx: smack-my-bitch-up.sh - sends a text message "late at work" to his wife (apparently). Automatically picks reasons from an array of strings, randomly. Runs inside a cron-job. The job fires if there are active SSH-sessions on the server after 9pm with his login. xxX: kumar-asshole.sh - scans the inbox for emails from "Kumar" (a DBA at our clients). Looks for keywords like "help", "trouble", "sorry etc. If keywords are found - the script SSHes into the clients server and rolls back the staging database to the latest backup. Then sends a reply "no worries mate, be careful next time". xxX: hangover.sh - another cron-job that is set to specific dates. Sends automated emails like "not feeling wellgonna work from home" etc. Adds a random "reason" from another predefined array of strings. Fires if there are no interactive sessions on the server at 8:45am. xxX: (and the oscar goes to) fucking-coffee.sh - this one waits exactly 17 seconds (!), then opens a telnet session to our coffee-machine (we had no frikin idea the coffee machine is on the network, runs linux and has a TCP socket up and running) and sends something like sys brew. Turns out this thing starts brewing a mid-sized half-caf latte and waits another 24 (!) seconds before pouring it into a cup. The timing is exactly how long it takes to walk to the machine from the dudes desk. xxx: holy sht I'm keeping those

Content stek Mil a te A ti tud ks nel mi ey ak f a la erinti helyszne szont nem esik le, hanem felszll. Rj' van a testek mozgsra. Amikor Galilei dolkodott, akkor mg nem tudtak lgr hogy kptelensg a Fldn lgres ter ent a termszet nem engedi a horse miatt). Galileir tar

You know that moment when you've been troubleshooting something for hours, documented every possible scenario, escalated to IT support, and they show up ready to witness the chaos... only for everything to work flawlessly the moment they arrive? Yeah, that's when you question your entire existence. It's like your computer develops stage fright in reverse. Broken and screaming for help when you're alone, but suddenly becomes a model citizen the second there's a witness. The IT person looks at you like you're making things up, and you're standing there feeling like a complete fraud in front of the "wizards" (aka people who actually know how to fix things). This phenomenon is so universal it should have its own error code. Maybe HTTP 418: "I'm a teapot, but only when nobody's looking."

BEHOLD! The magnificent evolution of code quality! From a beautifully drawn bird (your initial design doc) to whatever THAT monstrosity is in the bottom left (your actual implementation). And yet—SOMEHOW—the abomination still flies! It's like watching your 47 nested if-statements and global variables held together by duct tape and prayers somehow pass all the acceptance tests. The client doesn't care that your code looks like it was written during an earthquake by a caffeinated raccoon. Ship it to production, baby! Technical debt is tomorrow's problem!

The universal debugging experience in two frames: First, your code inexplicably works after 17 random changes and you have no idea which one fixed it. Then comes the existential dread of knowing you'll have to maintain this mysterious black box tomorrow. The fear isn't from bugs—it's from the working code you can't explain. Nothing more terrifying than success you don't understand.