Obviously they were under a lot of pressure and it's easy to stand here and criticise, but...
...if my site is slowing down with load or usage, I'm not sure how you make the jump to "I should update my UI libraries!". Angular 4 isn't getting any slower, so best case is you've got some unknown performance bottleneck in your UI that is somehow causing 30s page load times, and which just happens to be fixed in Angular 6, and you don't accidentally add any new issues when you upgrade.
Conversely, it feels like if you're struggling with "slow load times" on a SPA, the first thing you'd do is open the network tab and see what requests are being made, to what, how often, and how long they're taking.
Grasping at straws does seem to be the right metaphor. (Or maybe the old chestnut about the drunk dropping his car keys in a dark parking lot, then looking for them under a streetlight, since it's too dark to find them in the parking lot?)
I'm happy for the team and it sounds like things are going great for them, but wow, that was an almost fatal bit of blindness. On the plus side, I bet everyone involved will check for inefficient database calls first next time. :)
We have some software that was returning different results from different environments, and we couldn't figure out the problem. There was a lot of panic in the room, from upgrading and downgrading Maven dependencies, building things inside and outside of Jenkins, and all sorts of random things.
We kept telling the project leadership that we're poking at the wrong part (intuitively), but they kept pushing. I've had to explain how Maven works, how building on Jenkins doesn't differ to building from our IDE's, etc.
It's only when we asked for isolation from the (human) elements, that we had the freedom to properly debug.
In the end, an unstable sort was the cause of the issue. We were taking the last element from an array, but not sorting the array first.
All of the stuff we did since last Thursday to Tuesday evening didn't help us.
So, I agree, you need good humans who are good at responding well when things break.
That wouldn't make any sense at all.
Every developer would have their own guesses that they would need to explore and validate, sometimes there's some grouping around where the focus is, but there's usually one guy that's exploring a totally different area to find that bug.
It's entirely possible that they could have spent hours or days debugging their issue only to find it had already been fixed.
modern stacks have a huge opacity problem, everyone wants to be magic, and everyone fails. abstractions make reasoning harder, what tools and techniques would you suggest for doing this?
I'd probably run the application in some sort of sandbox and measure the outbound request load vs inbound request load, something a containerized deployment should be giving the end user (developer) as an affordance for application maintenance and visibility. Differential analysis and graphing built directly into the execution substrate.
Judge away!
edit: I would have also assumed they would get this for free from GCP's billing breakdown, but I'm not familiar with it. My first intuition when facing unexpected billing would be to figure out what the major contributor to the bill is (in this case, massive reads from FireStore), not update my frontend packages.
Google cloud has trace built in which could have shown them execution times and is dead simple to drop into most frameworks.
The real story here is that hey didn’t have engineering leadership on the team who knew how to properly diagnose issues, put tooling in place before launch, and understand how their system is architected.
Kudos to the engineers for solving this issue under pressure.
^ Best response, hands down.
They didn’t upgrade packages to solve the mystery billing. They upgraded packages before they checked what was going on with the database. When they saw the high billing that pointed them to the problem and they fixed it.
There was some questionable judgement shown by not checking db requests first, sure, but in no way did someone think “our google billing is high, we better upgrade angular”.
Also, lots of people are impatient and/or intellectually lazy. We have piled up a ton of abstraction layers, yes, but they aren't hard to pry apart. But people want immediate results without doing necessary cognitive work - understanding-guided exploration.
It usually isn't hard to identify which component of your product is misbehaving. Before getting into complex magic of containers and sandboxes and stuff, I'd start with the easiest - looking at the Network tab, at your server's resource use, reading the logs, adding some log statements measuring times in suspected areas, actually profiling the backend code (e.g. with a statistical profiler). This should quickly help you identify where the problem is manifesting itself. Then the search for the cause begins.
Sorry, the guy that wrote/implemented abstraction layers 2 and 3 left 2 years ago and didn't document anything.
We've been understaffed for a year and we've been told not to hire any more staff until the new financial year.
I've got a "technical debt" item on the backlog but business drives the priorities and it'll never get done.
Only matters when the fault is located or manifests itself precisely in that layer, and that's always a risk. Consider all the third-party dependencies you use. They usually have only their APIs documented. Fixing a fault usually requires knowledge of the internal implementation.
> We've been understaffed for a year and we've been told not to hire any more staff until the new financial year.
> I've got a "technical debt" item on the backlog but business drives the priorities and it'll never get done.
Yeah, I get that. I've seen that. Thing is, you can only play lottery so long with your main product - and also, if your workplace runs an assembly line so tight that you can't spend hours thinking per ticket (excluding the most trivial ones), then something is seriously broken on yet another level.
Ultimately, I guess what I'm saying is that the main problem here is cultural - possibly both on developer and management side. The actual technical tasks aren't usually that challenging.
To debug something complex, I would use chrome devtools, which can measure all kinds of metrics, and the function "Audit > LightHouse" automates the process and ranks a webapp in several key categories.
This case would appear to be related to network requests, so that issue should be fairly obvious in LightHouse.
This is a good thought-process even when debugging issues during development. I've seen many developers attempt to "fix" issues by trying to figure out what dance/keystroke makes things work.
Whenever you encounter an issue of any kind, anywhere, understand the issue before attempting to resolve it. It may require you to dig deep into things you don't currently understand, but your career is currently telling you that you need to understand it.
Yeah. That jumped out at me as well. They spent an inordinate amount of effort to solve a non-problem. It's great to stay on evergreen with versions, but probably not a good thing to do so while you're desperately trying to debug a problem.
I suspect this was a hopeful but lazy attempt - in the spirit of "Maybe if we just do this, it will somehow fix the underlying problem". It's a lazy approach to solving problems. Debugging performance bottlenecks is hard and devs generally hate doing it. Upgrading version dependencies is a known factor and developers are comfortable with that.
Usually you want to understand the problem before solving it. In this case, they wasted a bunch of time doing a bunch of things (upgrading all the dependencies, and refactoring the app) in the hope that something (ANYTHING) they're doing hopefully fixes a problem they don't understand. Smart move?
That's one perspective. But come on! I really don't understand that attitude that when presented with a problem, the first approach is to spend a few days blindingly refactoring code and upgrading all the underlying frameworks. Seriously?
The problem is also obvious if you just stop and think about it for a second:
- They are using Firebase. For the purposes of diagnosing our issue we can assume the backend will scale well (for trivial queries) and the pipe between server and client should be wide. Firebase could be the problem, but odds are Firebase didn't go down on you just as your go-live went ahead.
- Because they are using Firebase, their app is completely client-side.
You can go through the potential areas of concern:
1) UI has trouble rendering. That should largely be independent of the number of users. If this was only a UI issue you'd expect some users to have problems (maybe ones that created a large amount of artifacts) but not all users. Presumably before going live, the app worked well with their test datasets.
2) Some combination of UI or Network or Data model. They noticed their web-app got slower as the number of users grew. So question is why would individual user session slow down as the total number of users grow? It must be that a single-user view is somehow dependent on the total number of users in the system. WHY?!? We know Firebase is fast, but any fast system can choke if you have a bad data model. So it could be a slow query. Or it could be a too large of a response being sent down (again, why would a large response be sent down). Maybe it was a huge json object and the UI locked up. Or something like this.
It really shouldn't have taken long to at least target potential areas to explore. HELL, you should be able to see the issue immediately if you open up the network tab. You'll see which requests are either taking forever, or lead to large amount of data being transferred or both.
It really isn't about 'armchair developers'. I've been in situations where things are falling apart and you need to figure shit out. Our product is on-prem and used in hospitals and is connected to multitudes of other systems controlled by other vendors. When you're trying to diagnose issues, you have to have a rational approach based on some reasonable hypothesis.
Sure, there are times when it’s going to work out for you but you should at least have narrowed down your issues before you go down that path.
I can just spin up PHP5, 7.0, 7.1 in case anything goes wrong without delay.
I've literally had people try to make conclusions on comparisons of test runs with completely different parameters, different data sets, different resources, different versions of code, absolutely everything varying.
My head just explodes... I wamt to scream that this isn't how this works, it's not how any of this works.
However we go about it, the first priority is to give ourselves some space to properly analyse the issue and find the real solution without the rest of the business worrying loudly about things being broken.
The tooling to make it easy not there yet.
[1] bit.ly/2v37AzE
It’s silly to suggest that JavaScript itself is somehow responsible for this. It’s obvioisly just a tool. But I have to say, the most professional cluelessness I’ve ever encountered was in the JS ecosystem.
A testament to how low the barrier of entry has gotten. It's both a good and bad thing at the same time.
It however leads to having to be ever more so vigilant about at least your first layer of dependencies in that ecosystem, if you do want to be professional.
The higher the barrier of entry is to a language, the more likely it is that when you're pulling in dependencies, the code isn't amateurish
Incidentally this is probably why JS juniors think to upgrade dependencies when they encounter unknown situations... a lot of problems in JS do come from your dependencies.
And the result is unsurprisingly poorer quality software. So why is it a good thing?
I don't think the problem of quality should be addressed by arbitrarily axing people from the field. Some sort of a standardization / accreditation seems like a better approach.
And axing is not arbitrary, it's generally done based on experience and know-how. Not everyone can or should become a software engineer.
If you do go and track down the problem in your depedency and file a bug, one of two things is likely to happen: they close it and say it's fixed in the latest version or they refuse to accept your bug because it's filed against an old version.
Skipping the track it down part and just jumping into upgrading can be a time saver. It works fairly well if you fit into the 'common' part of the user base with frequent updates. (Incidentally dependencies with frequent updates are kind of a pain)
This is the part the parent's cow-orkers didn't perform. There's nothing wrong in updating a dependency to include the fix for the problem you're experiencing. But the people in question were apparently too lazy/clueless to even track down the problem, opting for randomly upgrading stuff instead.
There's a difference between upgrading your dependencies because you traced a problem that you know is fixed in the newer version and upgrading your dependencies because you hope it fixes a problem you don't understand.
There is the possibility you are told you made a mistake in thinking it’s a bug with the library
The current trend and curse of DRY and NIH is to solve stuff by adding dependencies and gluing them together. Rookies expect that some software solved the problem at hand without thinking about it. Even worse is that they even apply this to rather simple things. The problem of OP - countig items inefficiently - is absurdly common. IMHO this is the heart of the problem, the new generation is highly uneducated how to handle data.
I used to be in the Java ecosystem, the C# ecosystem, the PHP ecosystem... and I could have made the statement "the most professional cluelessness I’ve ever encountered was in the X ecosystem."
I think it's just an industry thing.
Having spent much of the past year writing Rust and interacting with that community, I'm inclined to disagree.
My overall feeling is that it isn't only JavaScript, but it is JavaScript and languages that attract a higher caliber of developer don't suffer from this problem the way that languages that appeal to a wider demographic do.
PHP, Ruby on Rails, and jQuery are other technologies that had low barrier to entry received the attention of the "unwashed masses".
This being 2018, JS has very low barrier to adoption (Have a web browser? You have a JS runtime.) and nature runs its course.
A significant number of graduates of computer science couldn't do software engineering after graduation even before.
That barrier to entry is designed to protect society from poor quality software and actual software engineers from having to suffer through picking up the broken pieces after those people that were helped to jump the barrier.
Most barriers to entry are not designed to protect anyone, they're designed to preserve power. To protect people from bad products, you need regulation, accreditation, etc.
This is the first step. Then one needs to find a company with a good engineering culture, apply the theory they learned and gather experience. Ideally one should find a qualified engineer as mentor.
Self-study and being aware of developments in the profession are the last piece of the puzzle.
Yes, some people won't be able to do some of these things and as a result they won't be good software engineers. They could still be successful programers, the two aren't necessarily related.
Apologies if I suggested otherwise, but of course programming doesn't need barriers to entry. Just like PCs and the internet don't.
As soon as I got to the part where they just upgraded a bunch of libraries.. I rolled my eyes, I was expecting a serious look at something, perhaps even a bug in Firebase or something in-depth. But nope, what we got was "Ooops I didn't think about the number of API/DB calls we were making because we don't think that way, we just assume everything is the fault of the libraries we use."
That kind of attitude is why I cannot wait to abandon JS all together..
Yeah I'm guilty of this one. Sometimes you know the problem is somewhere in a particular area of code, but that code is all over the place. Pulling it apart and refactoring it can be a good way of understanding all its dependencies. If the refactoring doesn't help, just don't check it in..
However it sounds like people are talking about refactoring an app solely for the purpose of hoping that the refactor shakes out whatever bugs. That sounds like the debugging equivalent of “8 hours of coding saved me 30 minutes of planning”
r/Javascript/Visual Basic/g # 14 years ago
r/Javascript/Basic/g # 21 years ago
Us old/wise/thoughtful folk have denigrated the tools that young/foolish/impetuous kids use since we were they.
We need both: yes, these young people made some mistakes, but I'm in awe at what they achieved. They built, triaged and fixed a massively successful campaign in the time I would have taken scoping out the requirements. Oh, and gladhandled Google into paying the tab... impressive!
[Update: formatting]
Understand the services you depend on. Track the number of requests you're making to them, how long they're taking, and how many are failing. Reason through your system and look at the data when you have issues, rather than grasping at straws.