T O P
lmchv

Always document, always communicate and always get explicit acknowledments/approvals on what you are going to do, otherwise it will be your problem if something goes wrong. You were pretty covered, good for you 👍


MoneyTreeFiddy

> 32,767 This was my favorite bit.


harrywwc

yup - one of the 'magic numbers' you meet over and over through the years.


Ok_Cartographer4475

Perhaps your f-f-f-favourite?


shotgun_ninja

That's quite a few bits, depending on the width of the field.


MikeSchwab63

15 bits. One more and it is 16 bits, unsigned 32, 768 or signed -32,768.


SevaraB

Unsigned 65,535 or signed -32,767, assuming you're talking about 11111111 11111111 in base 2. The number you just gave would be 10000000 00000000 in base 2...


MikeSchwab63

32,767 is x'7FFF'. Add 1 to x' 8000'.


lucky_ducker

Signed smallint data mistyped as an unsigned smallint variable.


TechnoJoeHouston

We have a client that's all in on FootPrints. For the most part, it's been pretty solid - especially since I moved them to new hardware (the original install was done on the cheap, so limited resources). Their support, however, is not the best. Well, more the process. Once we get an actual support engineer remoted in the fixes go quickly. The issue is having to strong-arm them into it.


Random-Mutant

25% failure chance? When I was change manager, that wasn’t just a Rejection but a Are You Fucking Kidding Me? On my risk matrix, that one would be burning acidically through the lower right quadrant.


30p87

> Apparently, this was our fault for not asking the compliance team for something we didn't know we needed. Just like after a sick day at school!


Zingzing_Jr

Had this once, I asked the teacher if I had any more work to make up and she said no. Then gave me a zero for not making up a test


spampuppet

Believe it or not there are actually worse products out there than footprints. We migrated off of it a couple years ago and most of us can't believe we actually miss it.


emag

When I first encountered Footprints *mumble* years/decades ago, I unilaterally said it was unfit for the task, given its then-insane hardware requirements. Now, I'm an end user of it in a many-jobs removed job, and it's still a Charlie Foxtrot, IMHO.


MrZJones

I'm upvoting this just because I've learned the fun term "Charlie Foxtrot".


Birdbraned

There are a lot of acronyms represented this way. Like "Whiskey Delta", that emerged out of the phonetic alphabet


Hattix

It's been recently joined by Oscar Sierra, representing "omnishambles".


rossarron

A stand-alone list of cover my-ass CMA) files is essential in all places of work.


joppedi_72

This I have had happened when updating a backup software. New version of the software needed a new license file, and to top it off they also changed their licensing scheme.


lynxSnowCat

> `...` > I had the changeset, and our customisations had been reviewed and updated by one of our PHP developers. > I dig deeper into it, and it's failing a licensing check. > In UAT (user acceptance testing, a shadow environment used to test changes by getting users to try them out non-production) > the licensing was provided by `C` the vendor as a non-prod 180 day trial. > `...` > He `[the supplier?]` brings in one of his developers and he's trying to reproduce it on his side after confirming we have the right version of the binary. > `...` > Turns out we should have been given an updated license file for the newer version of Footprints, > `A` and they hadn't given it to us. > Apparently, this was our fault for not asking `B` their compliance team for something we didn't know we needed. {`A`,`B` compliance,`C`} are who? {supplier, vendor, 'our' developer that approved the change set}? Because if the error explicitly stated that the license check; Once the binary was verified I'd have thought that somebody would have checked the license *and licence data state.* (And if PHP&supplier developer's test environments drew from the different license pools without error/fault...)


Hattix

You're asking good questions, and they deserve an answer. A: Numara. B: Numara. C: Numara. Getting to the point where we knew it was a licensing issue was difficult, as it was just silently rejecting logins. How do you audit the license usage when you can't log in?


lynxSnowCat

This is *almost* the desired behaviour to frustrate businesses that are attempting to bypass the license check. But also incredibly frustrating to businesses that believe they have a valid license, and are then frustrated with the piece of [software] malfunctioning for no good reason presented to them. --- ... I've heard stories from programmers contracted by a similar company (based in Florida?) when they were trying to expand a medical program into a generally applicable package (long before Google Health existed) during a reorg/name change. — Many bizarre flavours of jank persist with medical software; And until now I'd firmly believed that "obfuscation *is* their central design philosophy" was an extraordinary exaggeration here. — `[redacted:` second hand account of specific frustrations/conflicts various contracted had with the lead developers, to do with {error handling as the primary flow control loop}, {restricted and immutable APIs}, {silently falling-back into states known by the lead developer, but not the user *and user interface* or the other programmers}, etc. `]` — creating situations much like you've described *with this one database/records program*.


GreedOfTheFool

Is this a repost? I think I saw this story a while ago, but with different names.


Hattix

If someone else had the misfortune of dealing with Footprints, they have my sympathy. I'm afraid I deal in OC only.


DeathWrangler

I read this with Footprints open in another tab


accountatwork86

I live in fear of a similar response...how can I ask someone for something when I don't know I need to ask for that thing.