801
That shadowy place (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 100 points 16 hours ago

I had this one user who kept using an old report. It used a terribly provisioned db account and had to be changed.

We created a v2 that was at feature parity to v1 and told users to move off of v1. Slowly but surely it happened.

Except one user.

We put up nag screens. Delays on data return, everything we could go "carrot" them to the new version but they stuck with it.

Eventually I called the guy and just asked him, "Why are you still using the old version?"

His answer, "no one ever told me about the new version."

I asked him if he got our email. He said no. I forwarded it to him.

"Oh."

I asked him didn't you read the nag screens? He said no.

I asked him, "The page doesn't allow you to move on until you wait 90 seconds. Why didn't you read it?"

"I didn't think it was important."

I learned an important lesson that day: never wait for all users to move. Once you have enough, start doing scream tests.

[-] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 59 points 16 hours ago
[-] dgriffith@aussie.zone 25 points 13 hours ago

Bastard user from hell

Every IT/software group needs to have one, otherwise you get complacent.

[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 12 points 12 hours ago

If some guy just minding his own business is your "user from hell" I am truly envious of your job

[-] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip 21 points 15 hours ago

I used to work for a university trying to modernize how people got student and financial data. Over half my work was playing politics rooting out people who refused to change and going above their head. We had one guy who didn't want to update a script on his end to include the bare minimum amount of 'security': a hard coded plain text password. It took me months and I had to go to his office to update his script and he complained about it the entire four minutes it took

[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 16 points 15 hours ago

Email to all:

“Due to budget constraints, resources will shift from $oldThingy to $newThingy. As a result, $oldThingy’s availability can no longer be maintained at the previous level.”

Then randomly kill oldThingy for more and more hours each day.

[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 12 points 15 hours ago
location /old_api {
  redirect /new_api
}

(can’t be bothered to check the syntax).

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 15 hours ago

If you have a major version change, it means that old API calls will break against the new API, assuming they are accurately following semver.

[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 8 points 15 hours ago

You’re absolutely right. In my mind “feature parity” got garbled into “backwards compatibility”.

[-] Longpork3@lemmy.nz 1 points 12 hours ago

A translation layer could be used, no? Check api version, translate any v1 specific calls into their v2 counterparts, then submit the v2 request?

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 hours ago

This isn't really efficient because when v2 gets updated now you have to update the translation layer as well.

Any improvements you made in v2 would likely not translate.

Essentially the best way is to provide users with an incentive to switch. Perhaps a new feature or more requests.

this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
801 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

20033 readers
2141 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS