Please explain this "official site-breaking" stuff
-
Continuing the discussion from Official Site-Breaking In-Reply-To Chain - Topic 20+1:
Continuing the discussion from Official Site-Breaking In-Reply-To Chain - Topic 19:
Succinctly. What are you guys trying to do? All the new posts are annoying.
-
I think the question was: How many "reply as new topic" can we chain before Discourse breaks down.
Filed Under: and it's currently 22 replies above the assumed limit!
edit: Paging @aliceif
-
-
My assumption would be mucking with things due to the 500+ new/unread banner and auto dismissal of things if you reach near the limit that @riking mentioned in that thread.
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/too-many-things/51043/2
EDIT:
3. Where can I find "Dismiss New" and/or "Dismiss Posts"?
4. Why doesn't the message itself answer point #3?
5. Why doesn't the message simply include a button to dismiss this stuff making points #3 and #4 redundant?5.That's a good question. In the next beta, the system pushes that button for you every 15 minutes to keep you under 80% of 500 instead of nagging you.
-
before Discourse breaks down
This seems to imply an assumption that Discourse wasn't broken before the experiment started. To such an assumption I can only .
-
If you read ~1 sentence further (which is the Filed Under), and checked the number stated there with the max("official site-breaking".topicCount) then you'd realize that I pretty much said the same thing
Filed Under: too much work, I know
-
Succinctly. What are you guys trying to do?
Nothing.
Messing with @kuro-bars, I think.
Filed under: You got the title wrong
-
Oh, whoops.
We figured everyone had One Post on mute.But what @kuro said - it was supposed to be a way to generate lots of topics quickly for KuroBar purposes (and being relatively opt-in due to being in the generic spam category).
If you'd prefer us to stop it, we'll do so, though!
-
I did not realize one post was meant to be muted. That would make sense if this is what it's used for
-
Have you heard of One Post Nyan Cat?
-
Not even remotely
-
-
Ah, the old category name things.
-
But what @kuro said - it was supposed to be a way to generate lots of topics quickly for KuroBar purpose
I'm just not sure why. We just have the vanilla @kuro-bar. We don't have the automated flush your unread stuff away yet.
-
How exactly do you expect it to break down? If it's a chain, it can't easily cause any exponential growth.
-
YMBNH. We broke Discourse by liking things. Which should be O(1)....
I'm just not sure why. We just have the vanilla @kuro-bar. We don't have the automated flush your unread stuff away yet.
Exactly!
-
Filed Under: YMABNH! When it is gone in a few updates, how are we supposed to break it then? Huh?
What makes you so sure it won't break itself for you?
-
Dude, it has my nickname on it. I am 100% sure it will break itself eventually. Thats why we hurry.
How am I suppsed to know when exactly it breaks? I AM NOT PSYCHIC?!
Filed Under: Kuro-bar ABUSE!!!
-
I'm not seeing how you plan to break it....
-
To be perfectly honest, neither am I. I am really just arguing here to pass some time!
I tried to insert some script-tags into the whole reply-chain once. That didn't work so I stopped bothering. Side effect of that: I get notifications for each and every one of these (so does ben_lubar, though!)
But if we are looking at past experiences here... we might still break something out of sheer Disco-luck!
-
nah, not a problem,
but 42 threads with almost the same name make everyone suspect that there's a new :fa-spin: going on
-
We figured everyone had One Post on mute.
You appear to have misspelled Ass-U-Me....
I knew what was going on though, which is why I didn't say anything.
I did not realize one post was meant to be muted. That would make sense if this is what it's used for
It's basically a testing ground for stuff. Which is why topics close in an hour from first post (which itself was a test.)
If you're not interested in watching people testing stuff, stick it on mute - see link above. (If the testing confirms a bug, which is what the testing is usually for, then it'll end up appearing in
Bugs
, either duplicating it or pointing to it.)
-
I knew what was going on though, which is why I didn't say anything.
There was a lot of talk about braking some sort of chaining which didn't seem to relate to the @kuro-bar stuff. Plus I thought they might have been trying to test stuff that isn't deployed here yet.
-
There was a lot of talk about braking some sort of chaining
I thought the point of this topic was to put the brake on the site-breaking topics.
-
I thought the point of this topic was to put the brake on the site-breaking topics.
I was getting more of a "Let's throw gas on this" vibe than "Hit the brakes". I think cross-referencing the threads in question here, and a retrospective as to the results if any, and the next test, is what's called for.
-
I innocently asked if it was possible to create new topics at a rate that would keep all users with over 500 new topics even if the dismiss button is automatically pressed every 15 minutes, 's all.
-
-
innocently
Hah!
I innocently asked if it was possible to create new topics at a rate that would keep all users with over 500 new topics even if the dismiss button is automatically pressed every 15 minutes, 's all.
I'm going to say probably not without "help" from bots.
-
@Mikael_Svahnberg said:
innocently
Hah!
Erm. mumble it was like that when I came here? Besides
I didn't mean to...
-
Which, IIRC, successfully broke things eventually.
Tangentially. The topics closing wasn't the direct problem, but them doing so triggered /t/1000 to cause symptoms.
-
I'd love to know how or why that was even a thing.
-
I'd love to know how or why that was even a thing.
I think it relates to using Ruby with some less-than-perfect choices at the DB level. They also send far too much information in reply to each request, and rely on caching to make this fast, so low-balling the hardware allocation makes everything worse (RoR is hardware hungry in practice).
There might be specific stuff as well.
-
The fact that we live in a world where computers are fast enough to run Ruby programs convinces me that the singularity is near.
-
I'd love to know how or why that was even a thing.
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/testing-auto-close-bug/7787/9?u=boomzilla
The likes topic wins, it created a incredibly inefficient query which we were mistakenly triggering on auto close (fixing now) and non mistakenly trigger on consistency checks.
basically topic_user table needs to "know" if a user ever liked a topic, which is all fine and dandy till you have a likes topic.
-
But... why?
-
Uh...why was there an inefficient query? Why was there a mistake? Why do they check for consistency?
-
-
I see two things, I do not see why these two things were in any way related.
-
-
That's not my point, how do these two things that don't relate even end up triggering like this?
-
That seems to be a common theme in quite a bit of the industry right now. All sorts of things that really ought to be separate are being knitted together under the covers. (Like fonts and the Win10 firewall…)
-
By mistake. I dunno...a typo? Brain fart? I didn't follow the code, but from listen to the discodevs, there were lots of things going on behind the scene. When you get into a pile of spaghetti, it's easy to not realize that someone else added something for some reason and then stuff gets reused when it's really not appropriate and you end up with something like this.
-
This is precisely my point - Discourse is so convoluted that this shit comes and bites them in the arse.
We have the same problem at work, but at least that's getting fixed. Which reminds me, I should visit the Lounge sometime this weekend, I have fun stuff to talk about.