• NumG
    22·
    7 hours ago

    I am in doubt. That wouldn’t even compile. But who am I to think somebody changing something like this would actually do a test compilation afterwards…

    • dan@upvote.au
      2·
      26 minutes ago

      HTML isn’t compiled, and unknown attributes are allowed. The best practice is to prefix non-standard attributes with data- (e.g. <div data-foo="test">) but nothing enforces that. Custom attributes can be retrieved in JavaScript or targeted in CSS rules.

    • Aa!@lemmy.world
      2·
      6 hours ago

      Compile? HTML?

      I’ve been off of web front end work for a while, but do CI systems actually do a “compile” type step on HTML these days?

      • NumG
        1·
        5 hours ago

        Yeah, you’re right. My mind was stuck. No compilation for HTML of course. I was thinking of automatic testing in CI systems after you commit. Compilation for Java, C++, etc.; some other form of testing for HTML (renaming tags like these should throw some errors I suppose)

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml
    1902·
    12 hours ago

    Tangentially related rant: We had a new contributor open up a pull request today and I gave their changes an initial look to make sure no malicious code is included.
    I couldn’t see anything wrong with it. The PR was certainly a bit short, but the task they tackled was pretty much a matter of either it works or it doesn’t. And I figured, if they open a PR, they’ll have a working solution.

    …well, I tell the CI/CD runner to get going and it immediately runs into a compile error. Not an exotic compile error, the person who submitted the PR had never even tried to compile it.

    Then it dawned on me. They had included a link to a GitHub Copilot workspace, supposedly just for context.
    In reality, they had asked the dumbass LLM to do the change described in the ticket and figured, it would produce a working PR right off the bat. No need to even check it, just let the maintainer do the validation.

    In an attempt to give them constructive feedback, I tried to figure out, if this GitHub Copilot workspace thingamabob had a Compile-button that they just forgot to click, so I actually watched Microsoft’s ad video for it.
    And sure enough, I saw right then and there, who really was at fault for this abomination of a PR.

    The ad showed exactly that. Just chat a bit with the LLM and then directly create a PR. Which, yes, there is a theoretical chance of this possibly making sense, like when rewording the documentation. But for any actual code changes? Fuck no.

    So, most sincerely: Fuck you, Microsoft.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      12·
      5 hours ago

      dude. i feel that pain.

      i got a dev fired because they absolutely refused to test their changes before submitting.

      I’m not talking once or twice either. at least a year of that bullshit. i had to show my boss how many hours of wasted time it was taking me because I look at the code first, like literally anybody. Eventually boss pipd them and fired them but holy fuck i wanted to kick that douche in the groin every time i saw a pr with their name on it.

      next place I work I’m insisting on a build step success to assign a pr.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      35·
      9 hours ago

      Surely you have to blame the idiot human here who actually has the ability to reason (in theory)

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        1·
        2 hours ago

        Well, for reasons, I happen to know that this person is a student, who has effectively no experience dealing with real-world codebases.

        It’s possible that the LLM produced good results for the small codebases and well-known exercises that they had to deal with so far.

        I’m also guessing, they’re learning what a PR is for the first time just now. And then being taught by Microsoft that you can just fire off PRs without a care in the world, like, yeah, how should they know any better?

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          8·
          9 hours ago

          Of course but people selling/offering shitty tool options is not only expected, it’s guaranteed. I certainly do not understand this tendency to blame the machine or makers of the machine and excuse the moronic developer

          • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
            3·
            8 hours ago

            Nono i agree with you, people like that cant be trusted with tying their shoes.

            I just wanted to point out that the system is the way it is because of “idiot human here who actually has the ability to reason”

    • dan@upvote.au
      1·
      22 minutes ago

      At least for that we have replacement names that make sense (like primary and secondary or replica).

  • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
    107·
    14 hours ago

    I had a Pycharm linter with “inconsiderate writing list” flag my use of “bi” as inappropriate, recommending to use “bisexual” instead. In my data job, BI, means business intelligence, it’s everywhere.

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
    351·
    12 hours ago

    I’ve been tempted to create a bot that does nothing but search comments in code for misspelled words and create pull requests for them.

    If it stays in comments, little chance in breaking a working codebase and I’d have an insane amount of commits and contributions to a wide variety of codebases for my resume.

    I’ll never be a top tier coder. But I might make management.

    • Keenuts@lemmy.world
      221·
      9 hours ago

      In case that wasn’t satire, please don’t 🥲 A small typo in a comment is not a big issue, and even if the PR is straightforward, a maintainer still has to take some time reviewing it, which takes time away from fixing actual bugs 😢

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    25·
    13 hours ago

    It’s time for chbottomt and clbottom to finally become valid HTML statements.

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      9·
      12 hours ago

      Or just have some random subset of browsers support them for some reason and other browsers not so much. It’s the html way.