[HN Gopher] Sonar is destroying my job and it's driving me to de...
___________________________________________________________________
Sonar is destroying my job and it's driving me to despair
Author : Crazyontap
Score : 78 points
Date : 2024-07-02 20:00 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (community.sonarsource.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (community.sonarsource.com)
| dexwiz wrote:
| No matter the industry, it sucks to have someone managing by
| dashboard. In classic post modernism, the signifier replaces the
| signified. If anything, it's a great signal to the employee that
| it's time to start looking elsewhere.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Are flies that evolve to look like bees to ward off predators
| postmodern? It just seems like game theory.
| dexwiz wrote:
| No, that is convergent evolution. A more apt comparison would
| be selection of secondary sexual traits that no longer
| correspond to fitness.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signified_and_signifier
| jjmarr wrote:
| I don't get why people hate on post-structuralism.
|
| The process of reality getting abstracted to the point
| abstractions stop being representative of reality is extremely
| common in software engineering.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
|
| A hyperreal workplace is one where representations of reality
| take precedence over reality itself, and the reality of a
| situation ceases to have meaning. i.e. One where people chase
| metrics for the sake of metrics, instead of understanding that
| issue count is supposed to reflect the underlying code quality,
| and code quality should always take priority over the
| representation.
|
| The broader philosophical context is relevant because it shows
| the broader cultural problem instead of assuming the issue is
| limited to a single tool.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> I don 't get why people hate on post-structuralism._
|
| Because, rather than recognize that overdoing abstractions is
| a thing and reminding people that there is always reality out
| there that won't bend to your wishes, post-modernism (which
| is the term the GP used) tells people that there is no
| reality out there, it's _all_ just human-created
| abstractions, and anyone who tries to push back because
| reality is just insufficiently post-modernist.
| orwin wrote:
| That's typically _not_ what post-modernism is, that's at
| best a misunderstanding, but more likely a strawman.
|
| The only point on which all post-modernists agree is a
| refutation of meta-narratives (and to be explicit: "here is
| no reality out there, it's all just human-created
| abstractions" is a meta-narrative).
|
| A very, very charitable interpretation is that you are
| maybe conflating it with Frankfurt School of critical
| theory, because it is also somewhat used/based on
| psychoanalysis (sigh) (latest postmodernists use
| psychoanalysis way less, also post-modernism isn't built on
| it, contrary to critical theory). Postmodernism is mostly
| post-marxism though, while critical theory is mostly neo-
| marxist imho (also, i don't want to be too critical of
| Frankfurt's school, i think most of their bad rep is caused
| by bad vulgarization/pop-science, most critics i read don't
| seems to understand why it's wrong either).
|
| I do think that the reason most people conflate the two is
| because of an idiotic canadian psychoanalyst who can't read
| (or at least, can't understand what he read), who _clearly_
| has no degree in literature or philosophy, and try to
| appear smarter than he is. He invent citations of the
| books, and sometime state that Derrida mean something when
| Derrida hismself wrote the opposite. 8th grader would do
| better and their reading comprehension assignment. He is
| wrong. Read and think by yourself.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| You need to learn to game it. People care about this stuff
| are usually stupid. When I led a large support organization I
| had an SVP who really cared about open incident duration.
|
| His pattern for giving a fuck was predictable. My strategy
| was to hold certain tickets in an undead state (not impacting
| the metric), then reopen them and close them, demonstrating a
| metric improvement.
|
| He got his improvement and big shot street cred, users
| weren't impacted, and I didn't have to ruin support to try to
| grind out small gains.
| OJFord wrote:
| Whenever I want to feel completely stupid, I just open a
| Wikipedia page on some philosophical term/idea and go down a
| rabbit hole of links that it's a concept in/argument
| against/etc.
|
| Just completely impenetrably baffling to me in a way that
| other fields like chemistry or microbiology or physics or
| whatever (despite also not being my own) aren't. Not that I
| understand them, but they're _penetrable_ , I can read more
| and more and form some kind of understanding.
|
| Is it just me? I don't know what it is, can it really be as
| simple as philosophy not being taught at school
| (compulsorily, or young) so I don't have that kind of rough
| overview of the landscape I do for other broad subjects? (I
| did take _one_ course in 'contemporary philosophy' at
| university, which I enjoyed, but we covered only what we
| covered I suppose - I might be able to hold a (very) basic
| conversation about Sartre or Wittgenstein, but that page on
| post-structuralism.. no idea!)
| _dain_ wrote:
| you aren't stupid. philosophers forgot how to write clearly
| sometime in the past century.
| orwin wrote:
| Most modern philosophers papers are 5 to 20 pages long
| and are mostly understandable, more than a particle
| physics abstract at least, you should try:
|
| - https://cpb-
| us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/9/177... (it's
| about rationality, it changed the way in manage my
| emotions and made me question my consciousness, which in
| the end made me stop alcohol)
|
| - https://philpapers.org/archive/KAMCYB.pdf which made me
| realize an intuition i had sonce reading the first book
| (i think the writing is better and clearer, but it might
| be because the author isn't USian/english and doesn't try
| to much)
|
| - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-018-02
| 071-y (i noticed my access wasn't revoked, it's been 4
| year since i've stopped working for an institution.
| Hopefully you have an access too, else you might find it
| on scihub)
| roenxi wrote:
| More than likely it is "just you", the page on post-
| structuralism seems clear enough to me (as far as I can
| tell, the post-structuralists are criticising structuralism
| because they don't think the structures are sufficiently
| powerful). What that means in detail is unclear -
| understanding a position and thinking it is obviously silly
| is a completely valid stance when dealing with
| philosophers. Or just having no interest in the questions
| philosophers often ask (for example, if structuralism seems
| to be fundamentally invalid then bothering to take a post-
| structuralist stance to criticise it it requires a certain
| type of pedantic and argumentative mind). Or the easy
| explanation which is misunderstanding [0].
|
| I liked the Barthes example on the post-structuralist page
| - if a text's author doesn't necessarily have the authority
| to assert the meaning of a text, then the idea that they
| text is necessarily part of some identifiable structure is
| open to question. I assume that means that the same text
| might fit into multiple contexts with different meanings
| and trying to fit it with one static meaning based on its
| initial context is doomed, and that suggests structuralist
| critique is either insufficient or overly reductive.
|
| [0] Although arguably all of philosophy is people
| misunderstanding each other; otherwise it may as well be a
| settled field.
| Juliate wrote:
| The root issue is the superior not having a clue. Sonar in this
| case, is sadly enabling this type of superior to be even more
| harmful, not to the developers only, but to the actual business
| of the company.
|
| And Sonar is far from being alone in this. JIRA is the most
| glaring example I can think of. Growing companies implement
| cargo-culted tools without understanding the needs and
| requirements, and let themselves drift into templates or "best
| practices" that are not relevant or beneficial to their own
| operations as-is, resulting in a sum of frustrations, whose
| impact on the work and the teams they acknowledge only way too
| late.
|
| The care you need to inject not only in your tools, but how they
| are apprehended by both your customers and their primary users
| (which may have very different, if not opposed, perspectives on
| how/why to use it), from pricing, to documentation, to use-
| cases...
|
| This is especially very complex when your tool answers to a
| regulation requirement, because it's very often received as a
| constraining/oppressing "solution", rather than an enabling one:
| it may be confortable to you as a seller, and confortable to your
| customer, but it may also be a counter-sale point to your
| (customer's) users that will impact future consideration when
| they become purchasing agents themselves.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Yes... but how often have you experienced a non-clueless
| linter?
|
| Some tools bias people into doing bad things. It's not exactly
| the tools fault, and they may even have good uses (like Bash
| linters), but tools guide people and it's good to remind people
| not to follow.
| icholy wrote:
| We used to have a rule where you couldn't move issues
| "backwards" in the workflow. Accidentally closed an issue?
| Gotta create a new one.
| wetpaws wrote:
| We use sonar at work and this resonates so much with me.
| zamalek wrote:
| I'm not sure how much value sonar adds where I work (dotnet). It
| enormously affects build times, and I've yet to experience a
| single true positive in 2 years (apart from the code coverage
| dashboard). The amount of MRR you can generate by vaguely being
| related to mitigating vulnerabilities is incredible.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| Sonarqube issues were the warning for the SOC-report powered
| issue scanners that have arrived more recently.
| Emigre_ wrote:
| Sonar doesn't seem to really work in my limited experience. It
| adds a lot of of time to builds, at least in the cases I've seen,
| while there are alternate linters or code quality tools capable
| of doing the same at a fraction of the time. Build times and
| development speed matter!... They matter a lot. You need a quick
| feedback loop.
| ars wrote:
| I use Sonar all the time, but not during build. It runs live
| while I'm editing a file. I've not noticed any slowdown at all,
| and it's certainly a quick feedback loop (it runs when I save
| the file).
|
| I've found the majority of its suggestions helpful, and the
| ones that are not I simply ignore.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| It adds about 2 minutes to our gitlab pipelines but the major
| issue with it is when organizations decide failures should
| prevent merging code to master or even deploying to a QA
| environment.
|
| That's the real time sink - figuring out how to get past it.
| It's a lot more than 2 minutes, sometimes even days if it's
| something you can't work around and have to go through the
| red tape if your team isn't empowered to take charge of your
| own pipelines.
| watwut wrote:
| Isn't the actual issue here the superior managing the sonar being
| a controlling jerk? Turning off the rules on sonar is easy,
| technically. The issue is social.
| kriiuuu wrote:
| Yes. I would quickly look for a new job. A linter should help
| the programmer along the way, but be easy to disable when it's
| invalid.
| elpocko wrote:
| >SonarQube (formerly Sonar) is an open-source platform developed
| by SonarSource for continuous inspection of code quality to
| perform automatic reviews with static analysis of code to detect
| bugs and code smells on 29 programming languages.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SonarQube
| eigenvalue wrote:
| This sounds truly hellish, like being controlled by a stupid
| robot straight out of Kafka's "The Trial." They should allow
| special one off exception that are documented with a comment,
| similar to how you can disable Ruff warnings in python code for a
| single like # noqa: F401
| EricRiese wrote:
| They do
|
| // Nosonar
| nsxwolf wrote:
| Google "nosonar doesn't work" for a million war stories about
| how this is not a solution.
| jahlove wrote:
| In my organization's sonarqube configuration (where of course
| every flag is turned on), `// nosonar` actually shows up as a
| code smell
| jimbokun wrote:
| > In my case, I have a superior who administers Sonar and is,
| let's say, completely committed to it. For any 'exception
| granted' we would have to book time with them days in advance
| then white-board the reason why Sonar is wrong, or produce a
| sample program - who has got time for that with tight deadlines?
|
| This superior (sic) is what a negative productivity employee
| looks like.
| pacifika wrote:
| Are the defaults emphatic to the engineer or to the ruleset?
| nsxwolf wrote:
| We frequently have the issue of, upon refactoring code in such a
| way that involves moving it and its tests to a new file, Sonar
| will take away our previous "credit" for code coverage
| percentage, dropping our project below the threshold and failing.
|
| The only workaround I've found is to create a new function, fill
| it full of many useless no-op lines, and write a test for that
| function, just to bump the percentages back up. This is often
| harder than it sounds, because the linter will block many types
| of useless no-op code. We then remove the code as part of another
| ticket.
| lesuorac wrote:
| Heh, at one place I wrote some java code that would use
| reflections to test the getter/setters in a POJO so that it
| wouldn't end up with 0% code coverage.
| icholy wrote:
| At my work you can mark any issue with "won't fix". The issues
| are right pretty often though.
| dgan wrote:
| Sonar tries hard to have an authority of a compiler, while having
| the resources of a linter.
|
| I am not saying it's snake oil, but honestly how i ve seen ut
| being used, it's not that far
| move-on-by wrote:
| I sympathize with the OP. Having said that, I've rolled out
| SonarCloud to two different companies and I would not hesitate to
| roll it out to a third if given the opportunity.
|
| Initially, people always come out of the woodwork insisting that
| the gate requirements must be hard blockers and that we can just
| hand wave away the issues OP listed by tweaking the project
| rules. I always fight them, insisting that teams should be the
| owners and to gain quick adoption it should just be considered as
| another tool for PR reviewers. Eventually, people back off and
| come to accept that Sonar can be really helpful, but at the end
| of the day the developers should be trusted to make the right
| call for the situation. It's not like we aren't still requiring
| code reviews. I feel for OP, but it's not Sonar's fault the tool
| is being used for evil instead of good.
|
| This last time I implemented SonarCloud, I took an anonymous
| survey to get peoples opinion. For the most part people liked the
| feedback Sonar provided. More junior engineers and more senior
| engineers liked it the most- midlevel engineers not so much. The
| junior liked getting quick feedback prior to asking for code
| reviews. The more senior engineers - who spend a lot of their
| time doing PR reviews - liked that it handled more of the generic
| stuff so that they could focus more on the business logic or
| other aspects of the PR. It's just another tool in the toolbox.
| sigotirandolas wrote:
| I saw a case where Sonar analysis was being requested by a
| government agency where software was built by consultants. From
| the government agency's point of view it made some sense to
| ensure that the code delivered by the consultants wasn't full-on
| spaghetti.
|
| However, I saw it causing similar turd polishing behaviour:
| Sensible code needing to be changed because it exceeded some
| obstinate metric, any kind of code movement causing existing
| issues to appear as "new", false positives due to incomplete
| language feature support, etc.
| karussell wrote:
| add (2023)?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-02 23:01 UTC)