But sometimes some innocent blog posts get criticised as if they claimed that they solved world hunger. They don't. They are often just some random thought in a rarely-read blog. Nobody intended to go convince a gang of seasoned hackers that they have undisputable wisdom.
It takes more than a few minutes, yes. But this one-time investment will prevent the next 10 migration-related bugs that he'll otherwise blog about.
Grab some representative data from production and keep feeding that into your migration tests. Keep updating those. Worth each minute if you care about quality.
> This wasn’t caught by the existing test suite (even though it runs almost 200 end-to-end tests), because it always starts from an empty database, applies all migrations and only then runs the test code.
Isn't that where the test coverage has a hole?
I somehow expected the blog post to extend testing for this. A pre-populated database which is then migrated. That seems to catch a wider class of issues than parsing sql and shielding against just checking for non-null without default.
Twice a year? That's only recommended by dentists in north america because most insurances cover it because of lobby pressure. Every 1-2 years fully suffices, depending on your risk profile (smoker, genetics, ...). That's what countries where the insurrance doesn't have skin in the game recommend.
And the average european has much better tooth health than the average u.s. citizen, in my experience.
"Receive messages on Signal via a simple API. Perfect for notifications and alerts." is not "how it works" but "how you use it".
This is "hacker news". A hacker is typically interested in how something works (under the hood).
If a hacker asks "how does this mobile phone work?" then they are not looking for "well here you press a button and then here you speak" but something about radio waves and cell towers and mobile operating systems.
You built this? Would you like to comment what your future plans are?
Your self-description is "entrepreneur love for automation". Is it fair to assume that if this takes off then you are planning to introduce paid plans (perhaps with some revenue sharing with the signal folks to lift rate limits for you)?
We know quite well how it does it. It's applying extrapolation to its lossily compressed representation. It's not magic and especially the HN crowd of technical profficient folks should stop treating it as such.
It's been there in programming from essentially the first day too. People skip the theory and just get hacking.
Otherwise we'd all be writing Haskell now. Or rather we'd not be writing anything since a real compiler would still have been to hacky and not theoretically correct.
I'm writing this with both a deep admiration as well as practical repulsion of C.S. theory.
In my experience, even if people knew, they just don't care.
Most people I talk to about this, tech and non-tech folk have an attitude with a.mix of "you can't escape this anyway, so might as well embrace it" and "misuse scenarios you are describing are pretty far-fetched".
But sometimes some innocent blog posts get criticised as if they claimed that they solved world hunger. They don't. They are often just some random thought in a rarely-read blog. Nobody intended to go convince a gang of seasoned hackers that they have undisputable wisdom.