I keep telling you! Chrome can sometimes hide an HTTP 500 ClassNotFound error!!



  • The same guy(senior lead dev with 10+ years) who filled the database with comma separated value columns,
    calls me to his desk, showed me a 500 status error page.

    Then told me,

    "Look, you're not supposed to mix Spring form tags with a value attribute specified. It's incorrect syntax. This is causing this 500 error and the users can see this only sometimes because Chrome hides this sometimes".

    Chrome had that magical power of hiding an HTTP status 500 error and make the web app work for a while, and only do this sometimes ?!!!

    The stack trace shows a clear CNF error for the jsp file. It failed to compile the jsp file in the first place.
    I kept insisting looking at the stack trace, he dismissed and kept saying it's the Spring form tags with a value attribute with a value. He didn't have to even look at the stack trace. LOL'

    Oh of course, it was working just fine on the demonstration server, my local host and every other developer's local machine and that of the testers.



  • I, ah, guess it can replace the error page with the built-in Chrome one unless you pad yours to 512 bytes? That's about the only thing that could maybe make sense...



  • That prevents chrome from showing its stupid "friendly error," yes.

    I know nginx pads its default error pages with HTML comments that say something like <!-- workaround to prevent chrome and IE friendly error pages -->.



  • @rc4 said:

    That prevents chrome from showing its stupid "friendly error," yes.

    No. The guy was talking about the web application completely behaving normal sometimes and crashing( HTTP 500, with ClassNotFound root cause) sometimes.

    Btw, then I asked him to look at the stacktrace and he just dismissed my suggestion.
    So I told him, that without looking at the stack trace, we cannot find the cause.
    Then he said he doesn't know exactly but he knows(?) why it's happening.

    How un-engineerlike, unscientific is this?



  • Right, I wasn't referring to your case, just expounding upon Macie's reply.



  • Sorry I got confused over who you were referring to.



  • He's senile lead (as in Pb) dev, not senior lead (as in leader).



  • @rc4 said:

    I know nginx pads its default error pages with HTML comments that say something like <!-- workaround to prevent chrome and IE friendly error pages -->.

    What the fuck is wrong with open source people. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT!

    "We're not going to make our own error pages actually friendly or useful in any way, but we WILL bypass a browser feature that attempts to do it on our behalf, because FUCK USERS!!! It's not enough that our product has shitty errors, we need to force the shitty errors on everybody else!"



  • No, you dumbass. It changes things from:

    "This page couldn't be displayed for some unknown reason. Sorry!"

    To:

    "This page couldn't be displayed because 404 File not found - here's helpful troubleshooting information."

    You fucking moron. They work around it because it's unhelpful, and the whole point of friendly errors is to replace blank pages with real error pages, but their previous error pages were so small that they got replaced by accident, you retarded fuck.



  • There is no way they are producing a friendly error message in HTML in less than 512 BYTES. It can't be done.

    If they don't like Chrome's version, the solution is to make a better version, not pointlessly disable it like a jackass.

    In any case, it's just plain WRONG for them to interfere with client software in that way. It's the browser's prerogative to render pages, putting in shit like that to SABOTAGE the browser is simply unacceptable.

    Not that anybody in open source gives a shit, as they have no concept of "usability" or "ethics" and as basically just a crowd of howling baboons who whom the entire concept of "professionalism" is alien.


  • area_deu

    The "Friendly error messages" is one of the biggest turds in the huge steaming pile of shit called Internet Explorer.

    👴 The site doesn't work!
    👨 Please send me a screenshot with a meaningful error message.
    👴 Okay, here you go:
    💩 "The site doesn't work".
    👨 undefined

    For added fun, if your App_offline.htm contains less than 512 bytes, IE will also show a "friendly message" instead of your beautifully handcrafted notice on why the application will be online again in a few minutes. So every time I do an update I now have to make sure to include a dozen lines of commented lorem ipsums.
    Defend THAT.

    TIL Chrome does this as well. Fuck you, Google.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    There is no way they are producing a friendly error message in HTML in less than 512 BYTES. It can't be done.

    Allow me:

    <html>
    <h1>404 - /home/index2.html was not found</h1>
    <address>nginx version 2.0 at test.com port 80</address>
    </html>
    

    Oh, shit, 118 bytes?!!!!!11111111111

    That tells me:

    1. The exact error that occurred
    2. The file that wasn't found
    3. The server that processed the request
    4. The protocol and port that the error occurred on

    Here's chrome's "friendly error":

    "Sorry, the page can't be displayed!"

    That tells me:

    1. There was an error

    @blakeyrat said:

    In any case, it's just plain WRONG for them to interfere with client software in that way. It's the browser's prerogative to render pages, putting in shit like that to SABOTAGE the browser is simply unacceptable.

    No, it's not. It's the server's prerogative to serve whatever content it wants.



  • @rc4 said:

    Oh, shit, 118 bytes?!!!!!11111111111

    What's friendly about that? It's gibberish to 99% of computer users.

    Look at that, I was complaining about an open source person not understanding usability and now we have a live demo of it. Congratulations! Now stop writing software forever!

    @rc4 said:

    No, it's not. It's the server's prerogative to serve whatever content it wants.

    Look, if they think Chrome's error messaging is bad, they have LOT of avenues to pursue, none of which is "bypass the browser feature by shoving bullshit on the end of their own error messages."

    For example, they could (gasp!) TALK TO the developers of Chrome and/or IE and find out the criteria for a good error message, then implement one. Or alternatively, try to convince those developers that their own error messages are sufficient and disable the feature.

    Talking to people!? But I R open sourrcezzz! I live in BASEMENT and write WEB SERVER!!! PEOPLE SCARE ME GASP!!!


  • area_deu

    @blakeyrat said:

    There is no way they are producing a friendly error message in HTML in less than 512 BYTES. It can't be done.

    <html><head><title>FUCK OFF TO BED</title></head>
    <body><p>The site is being updated and will be available again at 23:00 CET. 
    Sorry for the inconvenience.</p></body></html>
    


  • @blakeyrat said:

    Look at that, I was complaining about an open source person not understanding usability and now we have a live demo of it. Congratulations! Now stop writing software forever!

    Okay? And "The page couldn't be shown. Sorry!" In pretty text is somehow more usable by the end user?

    The point of error pages is to tell the admins and developers what went wrong, and to tell users that something went wrong. Friendly error pages are a undefined to debugging. Congratulations on being a complete and total idiot. Please skewer yourself on the space needle.



  • @rc4 said:

    Okay? And "The page couldn't be shown. Sorry!" In pretty text is somehow more usable by the end user?

    Did I say it was? No, I fucking didn't.

    Sorry, I can't have a debate with the little invisible elves in your head; they're like the Great Gazoo, only you can see them. Come back when you want to actually discuss things I've written.


  • area_deu

    @blakeyrat said:

    For example, they could (gasp!) TALK TO the developers of Chrome and/or IE

    🤣
    Have you ever tried to use Microsoft "Connect"?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    There is no way they are producing a friendly error message in HTML in less than 512 BYTES. It can't be done.

    "Friendly" doesn't imply "tons of buttons, tons of JS, tons of fancy CSS animation and an ad popup or two".


  • area_deu

    @blakeyrat said:

    find out the criteria for a good error message

    Apparently, the sole criterion is "longer than 512 bytes".

    then implement one.
    ``` html <!-- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Ste --> ```


  • @blakeyrat said:

    Did I say it was? No, I fucking didn't.

    @blakeyrat said:

    What's friendly about that? It's gibberish to 99% of computer users.

    Look at that, I was complaining about an open source person not understanding usability and now we have a live demo of it. Congratulations! Now stop writing software forever!

    You're not even trying now.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.